Ok I must confess that 24, in my opinion, is the best show ever. Seinfield might be the funniest and there a few really cool sci-fi shows out there, but 24 is the all around best show I've ever seen.
Anyway, I was watching an espisode from season 5 on DVD last night (I own seasons 1 through 5) and something strange happened in one of the scenes. The president and his aid did something I would never have expected in a hit show like 24. It blew my mind, but they actually prayed! I couldn't believe this. I thought, well certainly the show will mock this somehow, but it was a very sincere, intense & emotion scene.
If you're a fan of 24 then you know it's none stop problems and issues for the characters to overcome. Jack (the protagonist) almost always makes the seemingly best decision. Others either follow his lead, exist in a grey area (struggle with doubt and making the right decision) or are bad. The president, in season 5, is in the grey area, unlike the previous president who was more of a Jack type of character. This current president is also not a strong leader and struggles with decision making.
There came a point in this particular episode where the president had to choose between his wife's life and the lives of potentially hundreds of thousands. He was torn and decided to choose the greater lives over his wife's. However, unexpectedly, in a moment of turmoil, he decided to pray and he asked his aid to join him. The two men then kneeled and prayed. Of course viewers aren't privy to their prayers as the camera cuts away just after they kneel. I don't know why, but this really touched me. Of course it would've been cool if the show had portrayed the previous strong/moral president praying over major incidents and issues, instead of this weaker president. However, I was touched by the sincere emotional intensity of this prayer scene and encouraged that even though God wasn't mentioned He was strongly implied.
I guess this also got me to thinking about how God is glorified in our weakness. This made this scene all the more real to me. This scene illustrates well the relationship God seems to most often have with man. We don't turn to Him unless there is no other way out and there is seemingly no good solution. Those who are seemingly strong and independent never turn to Him because they believe their own strength is sufficient. It actually makes sense that a weaker indecisive man would turn to God in a time of crisis, when all other avenues turn up nothing.
Maybe I'm reading more into this then I should, but it was encouraging none the less that my favorite TV show acknowledge God as a savior in some fashion, even if only implied.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Do I really have to wash their feet?
What was up with Jesus washing the apostle’s feet? Was this an idealistic “Jesus” moment or an analogy which was never meant to be followed?
John 13:1-13
From reading these verses it seems very plain to me that Jesus was speaking both of spiritual and physical matters. I’m not sure what Jesus meant by: “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean.” The only interpretation I can come up with is found in Isaiah 52:7 & Romans 10:14-15. These verses refer to the beauty of the feet of those who bring the good news that proclaims the salvation bought by Jesus Christ. I also know that the feet were a pretty stenchy mess back in the day as folks walked to and fro in the dirt and whatever excrement happened to be mixed in with the dirt. So perhaps Jesus was referring to cleaning the worst part of the body, or in a spiritual sense cleaning out the worst part of our hearts where sin resides? I don't know. This seems like a stretch. Either way this was definitely the most humbling thing Jesus Christ could've done for his apostles.
Now I’d like to take a look at some verses I believe must be interpreted through John 13:1-13. Acts 6:1-7 would seem to indicate that it is acceptable for church leaders to neglect the daily concerns of the congregation in order to focus on studying the word and praying. From my perspective this seems to be the interpretation most church leaders have adopted in their “hands off” approach to leadership. However, this is most definitely not the correct interpretation of these verses. What the apostles did here was delegate some of their authority to others and these others then taught and discipled still others. The apostles were overwhelmed and so they did the right thing and delegated so that the good news of Jesus Christ could continue to spread and the needs of the congregation could be met. This is most definitely not an example to follow in how distant church leadership should be from the congregation. Yes one person can only be involved in so many folks lives, but no one should ever allow themselves to get caught up in the prideful belief that their time in the word or in prayer should supersede their responsibility to be “hands on” with the congregation or that their time is more valuable then anyone else’s.
We should all follow Jesus Christ’s example who washed the apostles feet and then willingly died (as a public spectacle) on the cross for our sins. Philippians 2:1-11
John 13:1-13
From reading these verses it seems very plain to me that Jesus was speaking both of spiritual and physical matters. I’m not sure what Jesus meant by: “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean.” The only interpretation I can come up with is found in Isaiah 52:7 & Romans 10:14-15. These verses refer to the beauty of the feet of those who bring the good news that proclaims the salvation bought by Jesus Christ. I also know that the feet were a pretty stenchy mess back in the day as folks walked to and fro in the dirt and whatever excrement happened to be mixed in with the dirt. So perhaps Jesus was referring to cleaning the worst part of the body, or in a spiritual sense cleaning out the worst part of our hearts where sin resides? I don't know. This seems like a stretch. Either way this was definitely the most humbling thing Jesus Christ could've done for his apostles.
Now I’d like to take a look at some verses I believe must be interpreted through John 13:1-13. Acts 6:1-7 would seem to indicate that it is acceptable for church leaders to neglect the daily concerns of the congregation in order to focus on studying the word and praying. From my perspective this seems to be the interpretation most church leaders have adopted in their “hands off” approach to leadership. However, this is most definitely not the correct interpretation of these verses. What the apostles did here was delegate some of their authority to others and these others then taught and discipled still others. The apostles were overwhelmed and so they did the right thing and delegated so that the good news of Jesus Christ could continue to spread and the needs of the congregation could be met. This is most definitely not an example to follow in how distant church leadership should be from the congregation. Yes one person can only be involved in so many folks lives, but no one should ever allow themselves to get caught up in the prideful belief that their time in the word or in prayer should supersede their responsibility to be “hands on” with the congregation or that their time is more valuable then anyone else’s.
We should all follow Jesus Christ’s example who washed the apostles feet and then willingly died (as a public spectacle) on the cross for our sins. Philippians 2:1-11
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Ever the opportunist
I wrote an email to a female friend of mine. It was in response to an email she wrote me about the small group we’re both in. She hadn’t shown up in a few months till this past Sunday. She showed up with her boyfriend. She wrote me about her observations this Sunday as compared with her previous encounters. Prior to this she had felt somewhat ostracized by the group, but this time she felt loved on by everyone. While this is good and I’m sure at least some of it can be attributed to growth, I wonder if it’s because she has a boyfriend this time? This means two things: 1. to the other women she’s no longer a threat (by the way she’s a very attractive woman) and 2. The guys won’t be all over her. I have to admit, the impetus for me to contact her out of the blue a few months ago was because I was feeling rather lonely and I wanted to try to strike up an email chain with an attractive Christian woman. Well I’ve succeeded in this, but she’s seeing someone else.
So this got me to thinking about the dynamics of singles groups, the selfish folks (in the form of opportunists) which generally populate these groups and the general state of singleness in the church. Fortunately I recognized my selfishness before I even sent the first email to this friend. I prayed to God before I sent of the email, changed a few things and tried my best to word it in a brotherly, versus desperate man seeking woman way. Keeping in mind 1 Timothy 5:2. Without going into details this friend has some very serious things going on in her life and I wanted to encourage her as best I could. However, I was still hopeful something would grow between us.
Anyway, this all got me to thinking why are so many folks in the church so unfriendly? Speaking for the singles I think there are 3 possibilities: 1. Insecurity. 2. These groups are full of opportunists. Everyone continually summing up others with the question “What can this person do for me?”. 3. The guarded heart syndrome.
I’d like to spend a few moments on ‘The Guarded Heart Syndrome’ which seems to be pervasive in singles groups. Both men (I’ve probably been caught up in this) and women are prone to this. However, women are by far the biggest culprits. I believe I’ve discussed this issue already, so I won’t dedicate too much time to this, but there has been a huge misunderstanding, of this subject. Women use it and hide behind the notion that it's the man’s responsibility to pursue them. While true, this doesn't negate the woman's responsibility to be at least a little bit vulnerable and emotionally available. Been hurt before? Join the crowd. Unless you want to become a Buddhist, you’re going to have to learn to deal with pain (see my ‘Why Pain’ article). If it’s the man’s responsibility to pursue then it’s the woman’s responsibility to be mature and confident enough to be at least somewhat emotionally available and vulnerable to men during the pursuit. Guys, on the other hand, when employing this, hide behind the delusion of the perfect woman and end up rarely asking any women out.
Human beings are such opportunists. Both men and women are terrible at this. Men, if there’s no chance of getting a date or no physical attraction, then why waste any time with her? Women, if you can’t see yourselves married to the guy within 5 minutes of first meeting him, then why waste anymore time on him? To answer both of these questions: because God told us to. How can you encourage someone, if you don’t interact with them? We need to focus off of our own desires and focus on Jesus Christ. If we'd stop continually being opportunists in the way we relate to others, we'd be able to better relate to others and fellowship could be something much more then it is. This would help to knock down a lot of these barriers we place between us now. Stop looking at the end, when it truly is the means which matters most.
Finally, we are all insecure about something, to one extent or another. Again we can’t be so afraid of getting hurt that we stay inside our shells like a frightened turtle. My pastor said something interesting this past Sunday. He said, “In order for someone to get to know me better, I have to allow them to get to know me.” The context doesn’t matter and the statement is obvious, but it still got me thinking. I started to see how insecurities play right into this guarding my heart crap. Well if you want that guy to ask you out or you want to go out with a certain woman, you’re going to have to be vulnerable and trust in the Lord.
So this got me to thinking about the dynamics of singles groups, the selfish folks (in the form of opportunists) which generally populate these groups and the general state of singleness in the church. Fortunately I recognized my selfishness before I even sent the first email to this friend. I prayed to God before I sent of the email, changed a few things and tried my best to word it in a brotherly, versus desperate man seeking woman way. Keeping in mind 1 Timothy 5:2. Without going into details this friend has some very serious things going on in her life and I wanted to encourage her as best I could. However, I was still hopeful something would grow between us.
Anyway, this all got me to thinking why are so many folks in the church so unfriendly? Speaking for the singles I think there are 3 possibilities: 1. Insecurity. 2. These groups are full of opportunists. Everyone continually summing up others with the question “What can this person do for me?”. 3. The guarded heart syndrome.
I’d like to spend a few moments on ‘The Guarded Heart Syndrome’ which seems to be pervasive in singles groups. Both men (I’ve probably been caught up in this) and women are prone to this. However, women are by far the biggest culprits. I believe I’ve discussed this issue already, so I won’t dedicate too much time to this, but there has been a huge misunderstanding, of this subject. Women use it and hide behind the notion that it's the man’s responsibility to pursue them. While true, this doesn't negate the woman's responsibility to be at least a little bit vulnerable and emotionally available. Been hurt before? Join the crowd. Unless you want to become a Buddhist, you’re going to have to learn to deal with pain (see my ‘Why Pain’ article). If it’s the man’s responsibility to pursue then it’s the woman’s responsibility to be mature and confident enough to be at least somewhat emotionally available and vulnerable to men during the pursuit. Guys, on the other hand, when employing this, hide behind the delusion of the perfect woman and end up rarely asking any women out.
Human beings are such opportunists. Both men and women are terrible at this. Men, if there’s no chance of getting a date or no physical attraction, then why waste any time with her? Women, if you can’t see yourselves married to the guy within 5 minutes of first meeting him, then why waste anymore time on him? To answer both of these questions: because God told us to. How can you encourage someone, if you don’t interact with them? We need to focus off of our own desires and focus on Jesus Christ. If we'd stop continually being opportunists in the way we relate to others, we'd be able to better relate to others and fellowship could be something much more then it is. This would help to knock down a lot of these barriers we place between us now. Stop looking at the end, when it truly is the means which matters most.
Finally, we are all insecure about something, to one extent or another. Again we can’t be so afraid of getting hurt that we stay inside our shells like a frightened turtle. My pastor said something interesting this past Sunday. He said, “In order for someone to get to know me better, I have to allow them to get to know me.” The context doesn’t matter and the statement is obvious, but it still got me thinking. I started to see how insecurities play right into this guarding my heart crap. Well if you want that guy to ask you out or you want to go out with a certain woman, you’re going to have to be vulnerable and trust in the Lord.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Elders and Deacons
I believe most church leadership and ministries are organized in an unbiblical manner. Now I’m not suggesting that we trash the whole thing and start over. No one and no church congregation are perfect. No one, but Jesus Christ alone, is capable of following the Bible to the letter because we are all sinners. However, when it’s something so simple to follow as it’s written in black in white in the bible, it’s very difficult for me to understand why it’s not being done. Why do so many churches seem to use black highlighters with the Bible? As with the singles groups, it seems like church leadership caves into the will of the congregation versus following the Lord’s will. Just like ancient Israel. The more I read the OT the more I see a pattern of disobedience which is very similar to ours (as a church, but especially as a country); right down to child sacrifices (see my previous article on abortion).
What are the qualifications for an elder and a deacon? 1 Timothy 3 also Titus 1:5-9
Perhaps an earlier picture of elders and deacons? Acts 6:1-7 It would also seem from scripture (first appearing in Acts 15:2) that there is a difference between apostles, elders and deacons. It seems as though there are 3 ruling bodies within the early church. However, whereas the elders and deacons are intended to be stationary (for the most part) apostles are expected to be itinerate. So what modern term best describes an apostle? Missionaries? Church planters? It seems an apostle is concerned with the larger church, while elders and deacons are focused on the local congregations.
It makes sense to have the elders and deacons over ministries, versus pastors. That is, pastor in the way we define this term now. Actually in biblical terms a pastor is a shepherd, so using this definition then a pastor should be either an elder or a deacon. Apostles should be itinerate preachers and missionaries (whether domestic or international).
Why get so caught up in names and definitions? It all boils down to accountability. When you have a ‘Spiritual All-star’, like so many senior pastors are in this country (whether they intend to be or not), who’s going to have the nerve to actually give this kind of guy true accountability? Everyone wants to be liked and accepted by the spiritual All-stars, so the answer is very few folks. For crying out loud, most senior pastors are synonymous with the church name. “Central Baptist Church, starring Dr. Joe Williams. Come worship with us and you might have an opportunity to meet this incredible all-star yourself.”
The way I see it the deacons are to be held accountable to other deacons and ultimately the elders. The elders are accountable to each other and ultimately God. Depending on which translation you read; bishops, elders and overseers are suppose to be the same thing. Pastors, apostles, teachers, prophets and evangelists are roles within the church, not designations of leadership, nor exclusive to church leadership (Ephesians 4:11). I don’t mean to get caught up with names, words and definitions. Such things are a meaningless waste of time. However, our perceptions of the words aren’t, nor are our interpretations of scripture. From my 29 years of experience in the church I’ve seen that pastors and elders have become two very different positions. Pastors are essentially spiritual All-stars and islands unto themselves (i.e. very little to no accountability). Elders have become the buddies of their leader, the senior pastor, I suppose they occasionally lead a Sunday school, help with the behind the scenes running of the church and generally feel pretty good about themselves that they have been found worthy to be knighted an elder.
No more senior pastors! According to scripture all of the elders should have the gift of teaching (1 Timothy 3:2). All elders should take on the responsibility of ruling their households (in a Christ like manner), continual study of the word, prayer, running a particular ministry, and teaching. There should not be one man identified as the superstar pope of the church, as most of our churches are structured. This isn’t biblical. There should be a rotation of speakers, based on their knowledge of the word and ability to speak. The church should encourage the growth of all gifts within the body. Teaching shouldn’t be limited to one man for 30 years. Some elders, though they have the gift of teaching, should be more focused on running other ministries in the church. The deacons should help the elders with the day to day activities within the church, including the running of the church. Also the deacons should be focused on integrating the congregation, whether through organizing and planning social events, accountability groups, men groups, women groups or community groups. The elders should focus on teaching, creating ministries, ruling over the various ministries and the deacons, as well as discipling particular laymen in the church. The wives of the elders and deacons should be used per their gifts. For some of them encouraging their husbands and caring for their family is their ministry. For others leading certain women ministries (under their husband), teaching and discipling other women should be their ministry (Titus 2:3-5). The elders and deacons should have enough discernment to be able to see the gifts the Holy Spirit has given to their wives and encourage them to pursue certain ministries (if their wives desire it), within biblical boundaries. The bible only indicates that women should not lead or teach a man (1 Timothy 2:11-14). There are many other ministries a woman can serve in, not the least of which is her own family.
The only paid ministers of the church should be the elders, and not all of them may need to work full time in the church. If they can hold a full time job outside of the church and still perform their duties as an elder then they shouldn’t be paid by the church. Only those positions which absolutely require a full time commitment should be paid, including other staff positions. Even Paul, a full time apostle and minister to the early gentile churches worked (2 Thessalonians 3:6-10). Deacons, their wives and the wives of the elders, should be of sufficient number to handle all other duties within the church. Anyone who serves regularly in the church should be a deacon, or wife of a deacon/elder. The only other exception to this would be the child of a deacon or elder or someone who is known, directly under a deacon and known to be of good repute (essentially someone who meets the biblical requirements for a deacon, but for whatever reason isn’t).
I believe the verses I references point out many of the things we’re not doing in our churches. I can’t remember ever attending a church which really seemed to believe in discipleship and accountability. I’ve had friends who were involved in Campus Crusade who indicated that both of these activities were going on. Why is discipleship and accountability limited to college ministries? This must be why so many of these folks yearn so much to go back to college. They remember feeling like they belonged to something real. Having wiser and older folks, of the same sex, holding you accountable and taking the time to build a friendship, be vulnerable and disciple is extremely radical in our society. However, you know what? It’s also extremely biblical and we’re not doing it, outside of some college ministries. Having bagels and donuts at 6am on a Friday isn’t discipleship or accountability, it’s fellowship, which while good and scriptural, shouldn’t be the extent of our relationships.
Here’s what this entire article boils down to: discipleship and accountability, from the top down. We are all sinners and the leaders are no different from any of us laymen. Trust me, if church leaders are godly men, then they will thank you and God for taking the time to encourage, prayer for and admonish them. Now I’m not referring to off the cuff pot shots or compliments. I’m referring to prayerfully considered statements, whether encouragement or admonishment. Actually, if done right, admonishment can be an even more powerful form of encouragement.
I digress, before I get onto too big of a rabbit trail, and conclude.
What are the qualifications for an elder and a deacon? 1 Timothy 3 also Titus 1:5-9
Perhaps an earlier picture of elders and deacons? Acts 6:1-7 It would also seem from scripture (first appearing in Acts 15:2) that there is a difference between apostles, elders and deacons. It seems as though there are 3 ruling bodies within the early church. However, whereas the elders and deacons are intended to be stationary (for the most part) apostles are expected to be itinerate. So what modern term best describes an apostle? Missionaries? Church planters? It seems an apostle is concerned with the larger church, while elders and deacons are focused on the local congregations.
It makes sense to have the elders and deacons over ministries, versus pastors. That is, pastor in the way we define this term now. Actually in biblical terms a pastor is a shepherd, so using this definition then a pastor should be either an elder or a deacon. Apostles should be itinerate preachers and missionaries (whether domestic or international).
Why get so caught up in names and definitions? It all boils down to accountability. When you have a ‘Spiritual All-star’, like so many senior pastors are in this country (whether they intend to be or not), who’s going to have the nerve to actually give this kind of guy true accountability? Everyone wants to be liked and accepted by the spiritual All-stars, so the answer is very few folks. For crying out loud, most senior pastors are synonymous with the church name. “Central Baptist Church, starring Dr. Joe Williams. Come worship with us and you might have an opportunity to meet this incredible all-star yourself.”
The way I see it the deacons are to be held accountable to other deacons and ultimately the elders. The elders are accountable to each other and ultimately God. Depending on which translation you read; bishops, elders and overseers are suppose to be the same thing. Pastors, apostles, teachers, prophets and evangelists are roles within the church, not designations of leadership, nor exclusive to church leadership (Ephesians 4:11). I don’t mean to get caught up with names, words and definitions. Such things are a meaningless waste of time. However, our perceptions of the words aren’t, nor are our interpretations of scripture. From my 29 years of experience in the church I’ve seen that pastors and elders have become two very different positions. Pastors are essentially spiritual All-stars and islands unto themselves (i.e. very little to no accountability). Elders have become the buddies of their leader, the senior pastor, I suppose they occasionally lead a Sunday school, help with the behind the scenes running of the church and generally feel pretty good about themselves that they have been found worthy to be knighted an elder.
No more senior pastors! According to scripture all of the elders should have the gift of teaching (1 Timothy 3:2). All elders should take on the responsibility of ruling their households (in a Christ like manner), continual study of the word, prayer, running a particular ministry, and teaching. There should not be one man identified as the superstar pope of the church, as most of our churches are structured. This isn’t biblical. There should be a rotation of speakers, based on their knowledge of the word and ability to speak. The church should encourage the growth of all gifts within the body. Teaching shouldn’t be limited to one man for 30 years. Some elders, though they have the gift of teaching, should be more focused on running other ministries in the church. The deacons should help the elders with the day to day activities within the church, including the running of the church. Also the deacons should be focused on integrating the congregation, whether through organizing and planning social events, accountability groups, men groups, women groups or community groups. The elders should focus on teaching, creating ministries, ruling over the various ministries and the deacons, as well as discipling particular laymen in the church. The wives of the elders and deacons should be used per their gifts. For some of them encouraging their husbands and caring for their family is their ministry. For others leading certain women ministries (under their husband), teaching and discipling other women should be their ministry (Titus 2:3-5). The elders and deacons should have enough discernment to be able to see the gifts the Holy Spirit has given to their wives and encourage them to pursue certain ministries (if their wives desire it), within biblical boundaries. The bible only indicates that women should not lead or teach a man (1 Timothy 2:11-14). There are many other ministries a woman can serve in, not the least of which is her own family.
The only paid ministers of the church should be the elders, and not all of them may need to work full time in the church. If they can hold a full time job outside of the church and still perform their duties as an elder then they shouldn’t be paid by the church. Only those positions which absolutely require a full time commitment should be paid, including other staff positions. Even Paul, a full time apostle and minister to the early gentile churches worked (2 Thessalonians 3:6-10). Deacons, their wives and the wives of the elders, should be of sufficient number to handle all other duties within the church. Anyone who serves regularly in the church should be a deacon, or wife of a deacon/elder. The only other exception to this would be the child of a deacon or elder or someone who is known, directly under a deacon and known to be of good repute (essentially someone who meets the biblical requirements for a deacon, but for whatever reason isn’t).
I believe the verses I references point out many of the things we’re not doing in our churches. I can’t remember ever attending a church which really seemed to believe in discipleship and accountability. I’ve had friends who were involved in Campus Crusade who indicated that both of these activities were going on. Why is discipleship and accountability limited to college ministries? This must be why so many of these folks yearn so much to go back to college. They remember feeling like they belonged to something real. Having wiser and older folks, of the same sex, holding you accountable and taking the time to build a friendship, be vulnerable and disciple is extremely radical in our society. However, you know what? It’s also extremely biblical and we’re not doing it, outside of some college ministries. Having bagels and donuts at 6am on a Friday isn’t discipleship or accountability, it’s fellowship, which while good and scriptural, shouldn’t be the extent of our relationships.
Here’s what this entire article boils down to: discipleship and accountability, from the top down. We are all sinners and the leaders are no different from any of us laymen. Trust me, if church leaders are godly men, then they will thank you and God for taking the time to encourage, prayer for and admonish them. Now I’m not referring to off the cuff pot shots or compliments. I’m referring to prayerfully considered statements, whether encouragement or admonishment. Actually, if done right, admonishment can be an even more powerful form of encouragement.
I digress, before I get onto too big of a rabbit trail, and conclude.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Why do we choose hell?
I met with the interim singles pastor, from the church I’m currently attending, the other day for lunch. Of course I was thinking perhaps this was going to be a meeting concerning my ascension to leadership in the singles group. My pride was wrong yet again. The meeting was about me attending a 20 something’s singles group instead of the 30 something’s singles group. The meeting lasted for about 1-1/2 hours and we had a good talk. I think I made my perspective and reasoning clear to him and he made his perspective clear to me. The outcome of the meeting was inconclusive (he’s going to get back with me) and ultimately, for the purpose of this article, irrelevant. I would, however, like to focus on one part of the conversation. That is, are singles groups biblical?
I explained why I believe singles groups are unbiblical and what I believe the more biblical model is. Then I shared with him my belief that humans will always choose hell and related this to the desire of most single people to have singles groups. Why do singles want to be in a singles group? A couple of possibilities: 1. they feel awkward, out of place and unloved in the church body and/or 2. They want to be around other singles folks of the opposite sex who share their belief system, for the purpose of dating. These two possibilities are from the perspective of a single person. Realistically, however, the answer is yet another failure of the church to effectively minister to the body (not just the singles) using a biblical format. What do I mean? I’ll get to that in a little bit.
What do I mean when I say we choose hell? I will answer that with another question. What is hell? More specifically why does it exist, who will go there and why will they go there? Hell is a place of eternal damnation, eternal separation from God. It exists because rebellion exists. People who reject the good news of Jesus Christ will go to hell. These people choose to believe a lie, live in darkness and emptiness, rather then the glorious light. These people utterly reject the notion that they are that bad, need God or arrogantly accept full ownership for their sins and reject the power of forgiveness bought by Jesus Christ. These people choose hell over eternity with Jesus Christ.
So can we assume rebellion leads to sin which leads to death and hell, without the forgiveness of Jesus Christ? Now let’s take a look at how this country was formed. Rebellion! Also how was the protestant movement formed? Rebellion! So both our country’s politics and religious practices are founded in rebellion. Now this is by no means to suggest these rebellions were wrong, just pointing out facts. However, we have to take a long hard look at the results of these rebellions on our society today. 1. A nation pursuing selfish ambition over God and 2. churches continually pop up in rebellion to other denominations. America has never stopped pursuing independence, now even from God, and the protestant movement in America has never stopped protesting and pursuing independence steeped in rebellion. So now we have thousands of denominations and religions which supposedly follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Which church is true and which is false? The lines become obscured and so only God knows.
Back to the churches failure to reach out to and minister to single members of the body. When the first pastor decided to start up a singles ministry what was he most likely thinking? Only God knows, but I suppose he was sick of listening to the frustrations of the single people who kept crying for a singles group. “I’m not married because I can’t meet any single members of the opposite sex.” So the pastor finally caved in, put a ministry reject in charge (as most churches still do) and the glorious singles movement was birthed from the Sunday school format.
What are the problems with the singles ministries: 1. leadership 2. separation from the church body 3. seen as rejects 4. pastors (especially those who have been married since they were 12) have no clue how to minister to singles.
Leadership: from the perspective of someone involved in ministry, being a singles pastor has to seem like the bottom of the barrel, even a youth pastor is looked at with more respect (especially since many senior pastors started out as youth pastors). This is the special needs arm of the church. As a result singles pastors either see it as a very temporary stepping stone to bigger and better paying jobs or they’re the worst of the worst. Basically this means that singles either get a pastor with his eyes fixed on something else or who is completely inept or both.
Many times pastors will concede to the will of the congregation, provided it isn’t blatantly unbiblical. It’s so much easier to do what people say and want rather then go to God and His word for wisdom on what’s best for these people. Got to maintain that 6 figure income, and pissing people off is no way to maintain a high standard of living. Don’t want to potentially cause division or lose productive (tithing) members.
So what does choosing hell have to do with Christian singles groups? In summary, the singles want to be around other singles so they don’t feel awkward, out of place and also so they can increase their odds of getting married. The married couples either see themselves as having “graduated” from the singles ministries (high school, college, job, marriage) and so either don’t want to be involved with singles ministries or don’t know how to minister to singles. So the singles effectively either become the rejects of the church or take over the church and turn it into a big “christianized” club scene/meet market with a spattering of Christ. Ever been to a one of these types of churches? My question is: at what point does trying to blend in with society compromise the unbending truth of the word? At what point does giving people what they want essentially go against scripture? At what point does giving people what they want equal unworthy leadership?
Now what does any of this have to do with Christ and hell? I believe Christ has very little to do with this, in fact. I’ve even recently fallen into the trap of believing getting married is a numbers game. Well, especially as a Christian, it isn’t at all. It’s the will of God. Either we as Christians believe God will provide for us or we don’t, or at least we don’t trust God. If we believe it’s a numbers game then we perceive the opposite sex more as an item to be purchased (especially with internet dating) rather then flesh and blood coheirs of eternal salvation. Instead we should hold onto God’s providence and view the opposite sex as people who we should serve and encourage rather then items which we expect to personally satisfy us (whether emotionally or physically). God brings people into your life for His glory not your satisfaction.
Sorry I’m having trouble winding this up. Here goes.
In conclusion, people will naturally choose eternal death and damnation over Jesus Christ every time. Yes, we humans are inherently wicked. If by nature we will choose eternal separation from God, then why wouldn’t that same nature encourage us to separate ourselves from each other? “I don’t want to be reminded of my singleness, so I’m going to separate myself from married couples.” “I hated being single, so now that I’m married I’d rather not be around single people.” “I can’t serve or lead anyone and I’ve been married for 20 years. What do I know about ministering to single people?” Are any of these quotes remotely godly? Yet I bet these thoughts, or very similar ones, have crossed many minds in the church.
To the married members of the body of Christ:
So what do we do with all of these darn single people? You love on them and take them into your small/community groups. You really integrate them into the congregation. You actively put their interests ahead of your own. It’s called discipleship and it’s about sharing your life with someone else with the hope God will move in that person’s life. It’s really easy, what would you desire if you were in their shoes? You’d want to feel loved, accepted, a part of a family. Yes you’d also want to be married, but doesn’t that really stem from this desire to be wanted and belong? I say most single people would be much more content with real Christ like community then with this blind leading the blind mentality of singles ministries we currently have in so many churches.
To the church leadership:
Can the singles groups and actively disciple and encourage the married portion of your congregations to take a very active role in the lives of people outside of their marriage. Yes you’re called to lead your wife and serve your husband, but that person isn’t supposed to be your entire world. Place singles in real community groups with cross generational members. You really want to focus the singles on Jesus Christ take them out of an arena which focuses them on the opposite sex, lustful thoughts, selfish actions and improper/unbiblical perspectives of marriage. “But that’s not our intentions. We are trying to focus them on Jesus Christ through teaching”. What do they say? The path to hell is paved with good intentions. When you put a bunch of single people together what do you think you’re going to get? And why do singles need yet another monologue? We need fellowship, encouragement and discipleship. We need to feel loved and we need the church to really reach out to us instead of placing us in foster care until we’re old enough or well enough to be married. Of course this can’t be done at once, but this should be the goal. If implemented in a gracious way you won’t lose any of the folks God wants you to have. The other benefit is that you won’t need yet another pastor and more money can go out to reaching the community and supporting missionaries. There are many roles in the church which are currently occupied by paid staff which could very easily be done by laymen, deacons or elders, but that’s another article.
Finally, to my single bros and sisters in Christ:
Give your church a chance. I mean a real chance, not 3 strikes and your out. Check out the men’s/women’s fellowships, the missions ministries, the youth groups. Check out any and all of the ministries in the church. God blessed me so much in fellowship at my old church in Charleston. I’ve probably never felt closer to a church family then I did at this church. I’ve heard several of my friends chastise this church and its leadership and they’re welcome to their opinions. Is the church perfect? No, but what church is? It’s too easy to divorce ourselves from marriages, friendships, family members and churches when things don’t go our way or we get hurt. Let me tell you something… It’s this type of mentality which is tearing this country and our churches apart. I’m not innocent of this type of behavior by any means. I’ve been aching to check out another church and I’ve been somewhat chastising the church I’m currently attending. It would be very easy for me to simply leave this church right now and remove myself from the single pastors leadership. However, I want to see what his verdict will be. I want to see how God works in His heart to do His will in my life. God knows I’d love to have more direction in my life and this is one way to possibly get it.
I explained why I believe singles groups are unbiblical and what I believe the more biblical model is. Then I shared with him my belief that humans will always choose hell and related this to the desire of most single people to have singles groups. Why do singles want to be in a singles group? A couple of possibilities: 1. they feel awkward, out of place and unloved in the church body and/or 2. They want to be around other singles folks of the opposite sex who share their belief system, for the purpose of dating. These two possibilities are from the perspective of a single person. Realistically, however, the answer is yet another failure of the church to effectively minister to the body (not just the singles) using a biblical format. What do I mean? I’ll get to that in a little bit.
What do I mean when I say we choose hell? I will answer that with another question. What is hell? More specifically why does it exist, who will go there and why will they go there? Hell is a place of eternal damnation, eternal separation from God. It exists because rebellion exists. People who reject the good news of Jesus Christ will go to hell. These people choose to believe a lie, live in darkness and emptiness, rather then the glorious light. These people utterly reject the notion that they are that bad, need God or arrogantly accept full ownership for their sins and reject the power of forgiveness bought by Jesus Christ. These people choose hell over eternity with Jesus Christ.
So can we assume rebellion leads to sin which leads to death and hell, without the forgiveness of Jesus Christ? Now let’s take a look at how this country was formed. Rebellion! Also how was the protestant movement formed? Rebellion! So both our country’s politics and religious practices are founded in rebellion. Now this is by no means to suggest these rebellions were wrong, just pointing out facts. However, we have to take a long hard look at the results of these rebellions on our society today. 1. A nation pursuing selfish ambition over God and 2. churches continually pop up in rebellion to other denominations. America has never stopped pursuing independence, now even from God, and the protestant movement in America has never stopped protesting and pursuing independence steeped in rebellion. So now we have thousands of denominations and religions which supposedly follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Which church is true and which is false? The lines become obscured and so only God knows.
Back to the churches failure to reach out to and minister to single members of the body. When the first pastor decided to start up a singles ministry what was he most likely thinking? Only God knows, but I suppose he was sick of listening to the frustrations of the single people who kept crying for a singles group. “I’m not married because I can’t meet any single members of the opposite sex.” So the pastor finally caved in, put a ministry reject in charge (as most churches still do) and the glorious singles movement was birthed from the Sunday school format.
What are the problems with the singles ministries: 1. leadership 2. separation from the church body 3. seen as rejects 4. pastors (especially those who have been married since they were 12) have no clue how to minister to singles.
Leadership: from the perspective of someone involved in ministry, being a singles pastor has to seem like the bottom of the barrel, even a youth pastor is looked at with more respect (especially since many senior pastors started out as youth pastors). This is the special needs arm of the church. As a result singles pastors either see it as a very temporary stepping stone to bigger and better paying jobs or they’re the worst of the worst. Basically this means that singles either get a pastor with his eyes fixed on something else or who is completely inept or both.
Many times pastors will concede to the will of the congregation, provided it isn’t blatantly unbiblical. It’s so much easier to do what people say and want rather then go to God and His word for wisdom on what’s best for these people. Got to maintain that 6 figure income, and pissing people off is no way to maintain a high standard of living. Don’t want to potentially cause division or lose productive (tithing) members.
So what does choosing hell have to do with Christian singles groups? In summary, the singles want to be around other singles so they don’t feel awkward, out of place and also so they can increase their odds of getting married. The married couples either see themselves as having “graduated” from the singles ministries (high school, college, job, marriage) and so either don’t want to be involved with singles ministries or don’t know how to minister to singles. So the singles effectively either become the rejects of the church or take over the church and turn it into a big “christianized” club scene/meet market with a spattering of Christ. Ever been to a one of these types of churches? My question is: at what point does trying to blend in with society compromise the unbending truth of the word? At what point does giving people what they want essentially go against scripture? At what point does giving people what they want equal unworthy leadership?
Now what does any of this have to do with Christ and hell? I believe Christ has very little to do with this, in fact. I’ve even recently fallen into the trap of believing getting married is a numbers game. Well, especially as a Christian, it isn’t at all. It’s the will of God. Either we as Christians believe God will provide for us or we don’t, or at least we don’t trust God. If we believe it’s a numbers game then we perceive the opposite sex more as an item to be purchased (especially with internet dating) rather then flesh and blood coheirs of eternal salvation. Instead we should hold onto God’s providence and view the opposite sex as people who we should serve and encourage rather then items which we expect to personally satisfy us (whether emotionally or physically). God brings people into your life for His glory not your satisfaction.
Sorry I’m having trouble winding this up. Here goes.
In conclusion, people will naturally choose eternal death and damnation over Jesus Christ every time. Yes, we humans are inherently wicked. If by nature we will choose eternal separation from God, then why wouldn’t that same nature encourage us to separate ourselves from each other? “I don’t want to be reminded of my singleness, so I’m going to separate myself from married couples.” “I hated being single, so now that I’m married I’d rather not be around single people.” “I can’t serve or lead anyone and I’ve been married for 20 years. What do I know about ministering to single people?” Are any of these quotes remotely godly? Yet I bet these thoughts, or very similar ones, have crossed many minds in the church.
To the married members of the body of Christ:
So what do we do with all of these darn single people? You love on them and take them into your small/community groups. You really integrate them into the congregation. You actively put their interests ahead of your own. It’s called discipleship and it’s about sharing your life with someone else with the hope God will move in that person’s life. It’s really easy, what would you desire if you were in their shoes? You’d want to feel loved, accepted, a part of a family. Yes you’d also want to be married, but doesn’t that really stem from this desire to be wanted and belong? I say most single people would be much more content with real Christ like community then with this blind leading the blind mentality of singles ministries we currently have in so many churches.
To the church leadership:
Can the singles groups and actively disciple and encourage the married portion of your congregations to take a very active role in the lives of people outside of their marriage. Yes you’re called to lead your wife and serve your husband, but that person isn’t supposed to be your entire world. Place singles in real community groups with cross generational members. You really want to focus the singles on Jesus Christ take them out of an arena which focuses them on the opposite sex, lustful thoughts, selfish actions and improper/unbiblical perspectives of marriage. “But that’s not our intentions. We are trying to focus them on Jesus Christ through teaching”. What do they say? The path to hell is paved with good intentions. When you put a bunch of single people together what do you think you’re going to get? And why do singles need yet another monologue? We need fellowship, encouragement and discipleship. We need to feel loved and we need the church to really reach out to us instead of placing us in foster care until we’re old enough or well enough to be married. Of course this can’t be done at once, but this should be the goal. If implemented in a gracious way you won’t lose any of the folks God wants you to have. The other benefit is that you won’t need yet another pastor and more money can go out to reaching the community and supporting missionaries. There are many roles in the church which are currently occupied by paid staff which could very easily be done by laymen, deacons or elders, but that’s another article.
Finally, to my single bros and sisters in Christ:
Give your church a chance. I mean a real chance, not 3 strikes and your out. Check out the men’s/women’s fellowships, the missions ministries, the youth groups. Check out any and all of the ministries in the church. God blessed me so much in fellowship at my old church in Charleston. I’ve probably never felt closer to a church family then I did at this church. I’ve heard several of my friends chastise this church and its leadership and they’re welcome to their opinions. Is the church perfect? No, but what church is? It’s too easy to divorce ourselves from marriages, friendships, family members and churches when things don’t go our way or we get hurt. Let me tell you something… It’s this type of mentality which is tearing this country and our churches apart. I’m not innocent of this type of behavior by any means. I’ve been aching to check out another church and I’ve been somewhat chastising the church I’m currently attending. It would be very easy for me to simply leave this church right now and remove myself from the single pastors leadership. However, I want to see what his verdict will be. I want to see how God works in His heart to do His will in my life. God knows I’d love to have more direction in my life and this is one way to possibly get it.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Why Pain?
I went over to my parent’s house the other night to mooch a free dinner before heading off to the gym. While I was eating my dad changed the channel. The movie ‘Shadowland’ came on. This was a movie about CS Lewis and his wife. I’ve heard about it, though I had forgotten the name. Since CS Lewis is probably my favorite Christian writer and Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger are good actors, I thought perhaps this would be a good movie. My assumption was proved correct. Shadowlands was a very good movie. In fact I already recommended it to a close friend of mine. In fact I’m recommending to anyone, especially single folks. Why?
CS Lewis spent much thought and writing on pain. He wrote a book about it ‘The Problem of Pain’ (haven’t read this yet) and he mentions it in many of his books. In ‘Shadowlands’ the CS Lewis character discusses the topic of pain at several points in the movie, both before, during and after his marriage. Pre-marriage he related to pain from the standpoint of a boy (who lost his mother) running away from it. Post marriage he dealt with as a man who was finally forced to confront it head-on.
There were a couple of lines from the movie which I felt were very impacting and thought provoking: one was uttered by Deborah Winger “The pain then is part of the happiness now. That's the deal.” The other was uttered by Anthony Hopkins “forgive me Jesus if I love her too much”. In the closing scenes Anthony Hopkins also says something about how he dealt with pain as a boy versus as a man.
I found this movie to be very thought provoking. Why did CS Lewis wait till his late 50’s to get married? He seemed very content being single and yet God threw this woman into his life in such a way he couldn’t simply ignore her. There was almost an instant chemistry and attraction between both of them; however, Lewis refused to acknowledge his feelings. Even after they officially were married, to keep her in England, he still wouldn’t acknowledge any feelings, nor recognize Joy as anything more then a close friend. It wasn’t until she was diagnosed with cancer that Lewis realized the depth of his feelings for Joy. It was at this point that he acknowledged his feelings and remarried her (for real).
Why does it so often seem we humans refuse to acknowledge the depth of our feelings towards each other until death or a definitive end is near? I wonder how the loss of CS Lewis’s mother affected him in with his relationships towards women. It’s obvious; he was in fact not a eunuch and had room in his heart to love a woman. Then why did it take so long for him to open his heart to a woman?
I ask these questions because they perplex me as well. From watching the movie, which is based on true events, I can conclude that God had a reason for bringing Joy in Lewis’s life and then taking her away (the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away). From the brevity of their marriage I can assume God didn’t bring Joy (a curious name, given her effect on Lewis) into Lewis’s life for the standard reasons which may be attributed to most marriages (procreation, partnership, a long lifetime commitment). Though they didn’t procreate, Lewis did inherit a child from their union (her son from a previous marriage), they did fulfill their vows of commitment to each other and there was a partnership. However, why did God wait till the end of Lewis’s life? Why is it so important to God that we sinners come to certain realizations in this life? Why can’t this all wait till eternity? In this case, did God want to open Lewis’s eyes in order for him to write down his revelations after his wife’s death to minister to others? In truth no one but God knows these answers; however, I’m still very curious.
Why recommend this movie especially to single folks? I believe Hollywood has polluted our minds with lies about physical love and its false promises of fulfillment and in part I believe this has led to false, or improper, expectations of marriage which can lead to divorce. Men desire marriage for physical fulfillment while women desire emotional fulfillment. Now it’s not necessarily the desire for this fulfillment that is wrong, it’s where we look for it. Even in most Christian marriages, I believe these desires are focused away from God. If you’re looking for it I believe this movie may show you a small taste of God’s intentions for marriage. I believe God wants to awaken and stir something inside us for Jesus Christ. I believe God needs to focus us off ourselves first and pain and suffering are the most effective, perhaps the only, tools for this task. True love requires a focus off of self and if we can take our eyes off of ourselves and focus love on another human being (a spouse) perhaps there’s the possibility we will see Jesus Christ somehow? Perhaps we’ll be able to understand a small amount of the love He feels for each of us? Perhaps then we can understand (in a very small way) the pain of separation between the Father and Jesus Christ? Perhaps then we can understand (in a very small way) how heinous sin is?
I believe God brought Joy into Lewis’s life, both in name and deed. It was important to God that Lewis understand how to truly love another human being. It was important to God that his heart be opened, not necessarily so he could love his wife (though this is part of it), but more importantly so God could enter into a part of Lewis’s heart which he had kept under lock and key since his mother’s death. I often wonder if I’ve locked a part of my heart after a dramatic (for me) break up several years ago. (a dear diary moment, you’ll have to excuse me).
So I guess this article has somehow evolved into a case for marriage. Though Paul mentions that it is better to remain single then marry, we all have to keep in mind this is in reference to a particular gift, which fortunately or not, not many of us can claim.
At any rate, I have to put a disclaimer on this article. This is most definitely the ramblings of a sinner. This is most definitely more of a journal entry rather then an exhortation, as is my typical style.
CS Lewis spent much thought and writing on pain. He wrote a book about it ‘The Problem of Pain’ (haven’t read this yet) and he mentions it in many of his books. In ‘Shadowlands’ the CS Lewis character discusses the topic of pain at several points in the movie, both before, during and after his marriage. Pre-marriage he related to pain from the standpoint of a boy (who lost his mother) running away from it. Post marriage he dealt with as a man who was finally forced to confront it head-on.
There were a couple of lines from the movie which I felt were very impacting and thought provoking: one was uttered by Deborah Winger “The pain then is part of the happiness now. That's the deal.” The other was uttered by Anthony Hopkins “forgive me Jesus if I love her too much”. In the closing scenes Anthony Hopkins also says something about how he dealt with pain as a boy versus as a man.
I found this movie to be very thought provoking. Why did CS Lewis wait till his late 50’s to get married? He seemed very content being single and yet God threw this woman into his life in such a way he couldn’t simply ignore her. There was almost an instant chemistry and attraction between both of them; however, Lewis refused to acknowledge his feelings. Even after they officially were married, to keep her in England, he still wouldn’t acknowledge any feelings, nor recognize Joy as anything more then a close friend. It wasn’t until she was diagnosed with cancer that Lewis realized the depth of his feelings for Joy. It was at this point that he acknowledged his feelings and remarried her (for real).
Why does it so often seem we humans refuse to acknowledge the depth of our feelings towards each other until death or a definitive end is near? I wonder how the loss of CS Lewis’s mother affected him in with his relationships towards women. It’s obvious; he was in fact not a eunuch and had room in his heart to love a woman. Then why did it take so long for him to open his heart to a woman?
I ask these questions because they perplex me as well. From watching the movie, which is based on true events, I can conclude that God had a reason for bringing Joy in Lewis’s life and then taking her away (the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away). From the brevity of their marriage I can assume God didn’t bring Joy (a curious name, given her effect on Lewis) into Lewis’s life for the standard reasons which may be attributed to most marriages (procreation, partnership, a long lifetime commitment). Though they didn’t procreate, Lewis did inherit a child from their union (her son from a previous marriage), they did fulfill their vows of commitment to each other and there was a partnership. However, why did God wait till the end of Lewis’s life? Why is it so important to God that we sinners come to certain realizations in this life? Why can’t this all wait till eternity? In this case, did God want to open Lewis’s eyes in order for him to write down his revelations after his wife’s death to minister to others? In truth no one but God knows these answers; however, I’m still very curious.
Why recommend this movie especially to single folks? I believe Hollywood has polluted our minds with lies about physical love and its false promises of fulfillment and in part I believe this has led to false, or improper, expectations of marriage which can lead to divorce. Men desire marriage for physical fulfillment while women desire emotional fulfillment. Now it’s not necessarily the desire for this fulfillment that is wrong, it’s where we look for it. Even in most Christian marriages, I believe these desires are focused away from God. If you’re looking for it I believe this movie may show you a small taste of God’s intentions for marriage. I believe God wants to awaken and stir something inside us for Jesus Christ. I believe God needs to focus us off ourselves first and pain and suffering are the most effective, perhaps the only, tools for this task. True love requires a focus off of self and if we can take our eyes off of ourselves and focus love on another human being (a spouse) perhaps there’s the possibility we will see Jesus Christ somehow? Perhaps we’ll be able to understand a small amount of the love He feels for each of us? Perhaps then we can understand (in a very small way) the pain of separation between the Father and Jesus Christ? Perhaps then we can understand (in a very small way) how heinous sin is?
I believe God brought Joy into Lewis’s life, both in name and deed. It was important to God that Lewis understand how to truly love another human being. It was important to God that his heart be opened, not necessarily so he could love his wife (though this is part of it), but more importantly so God could enter into a part of Lewis’s heart which he had kept under lock and key since his mother’s death. I often wonder if I’ve locked a part of my heart after a dramatic (for me) break up several years ago. (a dear diary moment, you’ll have to excuse me).
So I guess this article has somehow evolved into a case for marriage. Though Paul mentions that it is better to remain single then marry, we all have to keep in mind this is in reference to a particular gift, which fortunately or not, not many of us can claim.
At any rate, I have to put a disclaimer on this article. This is most definitely the ramblings of a sinner. This is most definitely more of a journal entry rather then an exhortation, as is my typical style.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
How should an unmarried Christian live?
Alone or with a roommate?
I know several folks, mostly women, who prefer to live by themselves. Why? The answer I typically get from both the men and women is that they won’t live with anyone else until they’re married. I find this answer interesting, so I ask them something like: “Well why do you think it will be better to live with your spouse then with a member of the same sex?” Basically I get the feeling, without them saying it, that it has to do with sex and euphoric love, but doesn’t that fade away fairly quickly?
I believe the real answer is these people are afraid of rejection and people finding out how bad they really are. They don’t want to be held accountable because they feel they’re that bad and can’t or won’t change. If you feel this way you desperately need a reality pill. If you think a roommate will see your flaws, how much more clearly and quickly will a spouse? You better never get married and become a hermit if you feel this way.
I watched this show last night called ‘Heroes’. It’s actually a very interesting show; however, that’s not what I want to focus on. I want to focus on one line from the movie and it went something like: “I don’t know about America. Everyone seems so lonely there.” This was a very interesting statement and I’m afraid it’s very accurate and a large part of why this country is falling apart piece by piece. Probably also has something to do with why churches are falling apart piece by piece as well. Admonishment, discipleship, encouragement and any other forms of actual real person to person interactions in the church are almost nonexistent. Now more and more single Christians prefer to live alone. Why?
I live by myself, but I’d much rather have a roommate. However, I’ve had my share of bad roommate’s so I’m very particular about who I’ll live with. The last guy I lived with was a complete slob and a smell emanated from his room. However, I valued his spiritual maturity and insights enough that the other stuff didn’t matter as much. As much as I hate smells and too much sloppiness, I’d still like to have this guy as a roommate. He’s in seminary now, but it’s great living with a person who is spiritually mature. You can learn so much about yourself. Also, I picked up a few things from my last roommate which really impacted me. One of them was the concept of praying for people on the spot. If someone mentions a need, pray for them right there and then. Don’t say you’ll pray for them later. This is a great way to: 1. encourage someone and 2. Stop them from dump trucking their problems, which can lead to a sinful focus on themselves.
Anyway, my opinion is that it’s far better to live with someone then to live alone. Only live alone if it’s absolutely necessary. Living with another human being is like having a piece of sand paper pressed against your heart and soul. It will work out the rough edges. If you can handle living with a member of the same sex, then you’ll be that much better off when you’re married and have to spend the rest of you life living with a member of the opposite sex.
Just my opinion. No biblical references.
I know several folks, mostly women, who prefer to live by themselves. Why? The answer I typically get from both the men and women is that they won’t live with anyone else until they’re married. I find this answer interesting, so I ask them something like: “Well why do you think it will be better to live with your spouse then with a member of the same sex?” Basically I get the feeling, without them saying it, that it has to do with sex and euphoric love, but doesn’t that fade away fairly quickly?
I believe the real answer is these people are afraid of rejection and people finding out how bad they really are. They don’t want to be held accountable because they feel they’re that bad and can’t or won’t change. If you feel this way you desperately need a reality pill. If you think a roommate will see your flaws, how much more clearly and quickly will a spouse? You better never get married and become a hermit if you feel this way.
I watched this show last night called ‘Heroes’. It’s actually a very interesting show; however, that’s not what I want to focus on. I want to focus on one line from the movie and it went something like: “I don’t know about America. Everyone seems so lonely there.” This was a very interesting statement and I’m afraid it’s very accurate and a large part of why this country is falling apart piece by piece. Probably also has something to do with why churches are falling apart piece by piece as well. Admonishment, discipleship, encouragement and any other forms of actual real person to person interactions in the church are almost nonexistent. Now more and more single Christians prefer to live alone. Why?
I live by myself, but I’d much rather have a roommate. However, I’ve had my share of bad roommate’s so I’m very particular about who I’ll live with. The last guy I lived with was a complete slob and a smell emanated from his room. However, I valued his spiritual maturity and insights enough that the other stuff didn’t matter as much. As much as I hate smells and too much sloppiness, I’d still like to have this guy as a roommate. He’s in seminary now, but it’s great living with a person who is spiritually mature. You can learn so much about yourself. Also, I picked up a few things from my last roommate which really impacted me. One of them was the concept of praying for people on the spot. If someone mentions a need, pray for them right there and then. Don’t say you’ll pray for them later. This is a great way to: 1. encourage someone and 2. Stop them from dump trucking their problems, which can lead to a sinful focus on themselves.
Anyway, my opinion is that it’s far better to live with someone then to live alone. Only live alone if it’s absolutely necessary. Living with another human being is like having a piece of sand paper pressed against your heart and soul. It will work out the rough edges. If you can handle living with a member of the same sex, then you’ll be that much better off when you’re married and have to spend the rest of you life living with a member of the opposite sex.
Just my opinion. No biblical references.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Reply to my letter: Quest for the godly church
Bill,
Thanks for your inquiry. I will try to answer your questions below to the best of my ability. I think our website will answer a lot of your questions, but I will try to fill in some of the blanks (see answers below). May God bless and guide you in your search.
Blessings,
Jeff
1. Do you have small/community groups? I believe this is essential in fostering encouraging/accountability relationships.
Yes. Please see our website for a complete list according to geography.
2. Do you have an active singles/young adult group? I'm single, but I'd like to get married when it's God's will, yet I don't want to be a part of a group which is essentially cut off from the rest of the body.
We do not have a separate group—these folks wanted to be assimilated into the existing groups.
3. Do you not only believe (many churches I've attended accept, but don't seem to believe) but also actively pursue the laying on of hands and annointing of oil by the elders for physical healing? (see James 5:14-15) It is equally important to me that a church both believe and pursue this miracle within the congregation for the glory of Jesus Christ and the furtherance of His gospel.
We do anoint with oil and practice the laying on of hands on a regular basis, but most often it is done in a home or in an individual meeting with the person who is ill. We do have periodic “Healing Services” where that is all we do.
4. How many members does you church have?
About 180—with an average Sunday attendance of about 500.
5. How many services?
2
6. How long have you been at your current location?
6 Years—we are a church plant.
7. How many expansion/building projects have you engaged in?
0—we were given this building by a church that closed.
8. What is the church's beliefs on women leading & teaching men?
Male elders.
9. What is the church's beliefs on personal finances and tithing?
10% is a good benchmark, but should not limit the giving of the believer.
10. Where do most of the tithes go? Internal or external?
Last year we gave away about 25% of our annual budget to external causes. That has been pretty consistent since the founding of the church. We have never given away less than 15%.
11. How much do the pastor(s) make per year, ballpark?
$50-60k (including benefits)
12. Are the pastors actually held accountable regarding their tithing, personal finances, personal perceptions (leading to pride), messages, leading of the church body and other sin areas of their lives?
Yes. We have a unique leadership team that functions as equals (we have no senior pastor). We meet together monthly for strategy and business; we meet separately on a monthly basis for encouragement and accountability.
13. What is the church's take on musical worship? What style of music? Tone of worship?
Content is the key—not style. Each church we plant will take on its own style and tone of worship music. Our particular style at Crossroads is contemporary. However, we’ve helped plant churches that are post-modern and even liturgical.
I realize this is alot, but I'd appreciate your answers.
Thank you and God bless,
Bill
Thanks for your inquiry. I will try to answer your questions below to the best of my ability. I think our website will answer a lot of your questions, but I will try to fill in some of the blanks (see answers below). May God bless and guide you in your search.
Blessings,
Jeff
1. Do you have small/community groups? I believe this is essential in fostering encouraging/accountability relationships.
Yes. Please see our website for a complete list according to geography.
2. Do you have an active singles/young adult group? I'm single, but I'd like to get married when it's God's will, yet I don't want to be a part of a group which is essentially cut off from the rest of the body.
We do not have a separate group—these folks wanted to be assimilated into the existing groups.
3. Do you not only believe (many churches I've attended accept, but don't seem to believe) but also actively pursue the laying on of hands and annointing of oil by the elders for physical healing? (see James 5:14-15) It is equally important to me that a church both believe and pursue this miracle within the congregation for the glory of Jesus Christ and the furtherance of His gospel.
We do anoint with oil and practice the laying on of hands on a regular basis, but most often it is done in a home or in an individual meeting with the person who is ill. We do have periodic “Healing Services” where that is all we do.
4. How many members does you church have?
About 180—with an average Sunday attendance of about 500.
5. How many services?
2
6. How long have you been at your current location?
6 Years—we are a church plant.
7. How many expansion/building projects have you engaged in?
0—we were given this building by a church that closed.
8. What is the church's beliefs on women leading & teaching men?
Male elders.
9. What is the church's beliefs on personal finances and tithing?
10% is a good benchmark, but should not limit the giving of the believer.
10. Where do most of the tithes go? Internal or external?
Last year we gave away about 25% of our annual budget to external causes. That has been pretty consistent since the founding of the church. We have never given away less than 15%.
11. How much do the pastor(s) make per year, ballpark?
$50-60k (including benefits)
12. Are the pastors actually held accountable regarding their tithing, personal finances, personal perceptions (leading to pride), messages, leading of the church body and other sin areas of their lives?
Yes. We have a unique leadership team that functions as equals (we have no senior pastor). We meet together monthly for strategy and business; we meet separately on a monthly basis for encouragement and accountability.
13. What is the church's take on musical worship? What style of music? Tone of worship?
Content is the key—not style. Each church we plant will take on its own style and tone of worship music. Our particular style at Crossroads is contemporary. However, we’ve helped plant churches that are post-modern and even liturgical.
I realize this is alot, but I'd appreciate your answers.
Thank you and God bless,
Bill
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Another letter: Quest for the godly church
Below is a copy of an email I sent to a pastor of a Columbia church. I didn't include the final paragraph in my email because I felt it was too much, but it's perfect for a blog article.
Jeff,
I recently moved to the Columbia area from Charleston, SC where I'm still currently a member of East Cooper Baptist Church. For the last few months I've been attending Shandon Baptist Church, but I disagree with too many of their beliefs. My entire immediate family lives in the Columbia and my parents are also looking for a new church body.
I've been saved since the age of 6 and been to numerous churches and denominations. I definitely have strong leanings towards a reformed (Calvinistic) theology, specifically involving eternal salvation and election. I believe Jesus is my Lord and savior, man and God and sinless/blameless in every way, thereby making Him the worthy, unblemished lamb sacrificed for all mankind for the forgiveness of sin.
Based on these core beliefs I would appreciate your comments and answers to some questions I have:
1. Do you have small/community groups? I believe this is essential in fostering encouraging/accountability relationships.
2. Do you have an active singles/young adult group? I'm single, but I'd like to get married when it's God's will, yet I don't want to be a part of a group which is essentially cut off from the rest of the body.
3. Do you not only believe (many churches I've attended accept, but don't seem to believe) but also actively pursue the laying on of hands and anointing of oil by the elders for physical healing? (see James 5:14-15) It is equally important to me that a church both believe and pursue this miracle within the congregation for the glory of Jesus Christ and the furtherance of His gospel.
4. How many members does you church have?
5. How many services?
6. How long have you been at your current location?
7. How many expansion/building projects have you engaged in?
8. What is the church's beliefs on women leading & teaching men?
9. What are the church’s beliefs on personal finances and tithing?
10. Where do most of the tithes go? Internal or external?
11. How much do the pastor(s) make per year, ballpark?
12. Are the pastors held accountable regarding their tithing, personal finances, personal perceptions (leading to pride), messages and leading of the church body?
13. What is the church's take on musical worship? What style of music? Tone of worship?
14. What is the purpose of church planting when Columbia has tons of churches already?
I realize this is a lot, but I'm fed up with attending so many churches which all claim to believe Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, but almost deny this fact in practice and seemingly disregard much of the Bible. I don't understand how a church can claim to believe Jesus died for the sins of the world and then was raised from the dead and now sits at the right hand of the Father and yet doesn't have enough faith to believe someone with cancer or heart problems or even AIDS can be healed. Likewise I'm fed up with churches which claim to believe in miracles, yet seek them for self glorification, instead of giving all the glory to Jesus Christ. I'm fed up with churches which spend millions of dollars focused on expansion projects to supposedly better feed the sheep, while people around the world, even in Columbia, SC, go hungry, can't pay their electric bills and are desperately looking for someone to reach out a hand of love.
Jeff,
I recently moved to the Columbia area from Charleston, SC where I'm still currently a member of East Cooper Baptist Church. For the last few months I've been attending Shandon Baptist Church, but I disagree with too many of their beliefs. My entire immediate family lives in the Columbia and my parents are also looking for a new church body.
I've been saved since the age of 6 and been to numerous churches and denominations. I definitely have strong leanings towards a reformed (Calvinistic) theology, specifically involving eternal salvation and election. I believe Jesus is my Lord and savior, man and God and sinless/blameless in every way, thereby making Him the worthy, unblemished lamb sacrificed for all mankind for the forgiveness of sin.
Based on these core beliefs I would appreciate your comments and answers to some questions I have:
1. Do you have small/community groups? I believe this is essential in fostering encouraging/accountability relationships.
2. Do you have an active singles/young adult group? I'm single, but I'd like to get married when it's God's will, yet I don't want to be a part of a group which is essentially cut off from the rest of the body.
3. Do you not only believe (many churches I've attended accept, but don't seem to believe) but also actively pursue the laying on of hands and anointing of oil by the elders for physical healing? (see James 5:14-15) It is equally important to me that a church both believe and pursue this miracle within the congregation for the glory of Jesus Christ and the furtherance of His gospel.
4. How many members does you church have?
5. How many services?
6. How long have you been at your current location?
7. How many expansion/building projects have you engaged in?
8. What is the church's beliefs on women leading & teaching men?
9. What are the church’s beliefs on personal finances and tithing?
10. Where do most of the tithes go? Internal or external?
11. How much do the pastor(s) make per year, ballpark?
12. Are the pastors held accountable regarding their tithing, personal finances, personal perceptions (leading to pride), messages and leading of the church body?
13. What is the church's take on musical worship? What style of music? Tone of worship?
14. What is the purpose of church planting when Columbia has tons of churches already?
I realize this is a lot, but I'm fed up with attending so many churches which all claim to believe Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, but almost deny this fact in practice and seemingly disregard much of the Bible. I don't understand how a church can claim to believe Jesus died for the sins of the world and then was raised from the dead and now sits at the right hand of the Father and yet doesn't have enough faith to believe someone with cancer or heart problems or even AIDS can be healed. Likewise I'm fed up with churches which claim to believe in miracles, yet seek them for self glorification, instead of giving all the glory to Jesus Christ. I'm fed up with churches which spend millions of dollars focused on expansion projects to supposedly better feed the sheep, while people around the world, even in Columbia, SC, go hungry, can't pay their electric bills and are desperately looking for someone to reach out a hand of love.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
An interesting article on parenting
I'd encourage everyone to look over this article. Even though I'm a single/never been married/no kids guy, I still feel like this guys might be onto something. I've seen how sheltered most kids are, especially in the church. As usual, an issue in the unbelieving world so easily translates into the church. Perhaps in this case it's actually amplified?
Even I sometimes wonder how I made it. My parents let me make mistakes and spend significant amounts of time away from them and yet I'm still here to write this. Are parents overprotective? Is this overprotection for the kids or the parents? Are parents more concerned with living vicariously through their children then in allowing their children to grow and develop naturally? This would explain the high amount of folks I meet in the church who seem to be living in a fantasy world where no one ever suffers or dies. A fantasy world where they can actually meet the perfect spouse who will never hurt them, piss them off, get sick, die, betray or leave them. I want to tell these folks to stop looking for Jesus Christ in a sinful person, but I know it would do no good and they would simply say "of course I'm not looking for perfection and that's nonsense to think I'm looking for God in human beings." Yet they still fall for the image over substance and get dooped by someone who knows how to play the game better then they do.
Anyway, I digress... Put your faith in the Lord and not your own power to be a "good" parent. Your children are (or will be) God's property and never forget that. Focus instead on becoming a more Christ like person and your children will see this. Try your best to make your words line up with your actions. Your children will see this as well and I can promise you this will have an impact on them. I can't imagine a more proud moment for a parent then to see their child perform a truly selfless act. I saw a kid give his new bike to another kid whose parents could never afford it. His dad encourage it, but it was the kid's idea and decision. Heck I was proud of the kid and I'm not even his dad. If it's God's will for me to ever get married and have kids I would say these would be the proudest moments of my life for them.
Even I sometimes wonder how I made it. My parents let me make mistakes and spend significant amounts of time away from them and yet I'm still here to write this. Are parents overprotective? Is this overprotection for the kids or the parents? Are parents more concerned with living vicariously through their children then in allowing their children to grow and develop naturally? This would explain the high amount of folks I meet in the church who seem to be living in a fantasy world where no one ever suffers or dies. A fantasy world where they can actually meet the perfect spouse who will never hurt them, piss them off, get sick, die, betray or leave them. I want to tell these folks to stop looking for Jesus Christ in a sinful person, but I know it would do no good and they would simply say "of course I'm not looking for perfection and that's nonsense to think I'm looking for God in human beings." Yet they still fall for the image over substance and get dooped by someone who knows how to play the game better then they do.
Anyway, I digress... Put your faith in the Lord and not your own power to be a "good" parent. Your children are (or will be) God's property and never forget that. Focus instead on becoming a more Christ like person and your children will see this. Try your best to make your words line up with your actions. Your children will see this as well and I can promise you this will have an impact on them. I can't imagine a more proud moment for a parent then to see their child perform a truly selfless act. I saw a kid give his new bike to another kid whose parents could never afford it. His dad encourage it, but it was the kid's idea and decision. Heck I was proud of the kid and I'm not even his dad. If it's God's will for me to ever get married and have kids I would say these would be the proudest moments of my life for them.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
A Response to my letter
Below is a copy of the response I received back from the pastor of the church I'm currently attending. I was hoping for more dialogue on the subjects of misquoting scripture and teachings on giving. It would've been interesting to get more of his thoughts on these subjects. Oh well.
TO: Bill Linton
FROM:
DATE: November 7, 2006
Dear Bill:
I may have fallen into the trap that speakers do from time to time in trying to make a point by referencing something that I certainly do not believe. I think what I said was that we live in a world where God does not pay our Visa bills for us, and you can understand how people could get to the place where they believe God helps those who help themselves. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
I do not believe God helps those who help themselves. I understand very clearly that the Scripture teaches otherwise. I believe otherwise. I thank you for your vigilance.
Sincerely,
TO: Bill Linton
FROM:
DATE: November 7, 2006
Dear Bill:
I may have fallen into the trap that speakers do from time to time in trying to make a point by referencing something that I certainly do not believe. I think what I said was that we live in a world where God does not pay our Visa bills for us, and you can understand how people could get to the place where they believe God helps those who help themselves. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
I do not believe God helps those who help themselves. I understand very clearly that the Scripture teaches otherwise. I believe otherwise. I thank you for your vigilance.
Sincerely,
Monday, November 06, 2006
Abortion: America’s sacrifice to a false god
Foreword:
Hmm... I've reread this and edited it several times to be sure I'm not getting carried away with my emotions on this topic, as it's a very hot topic. I tried my best to keep this somewhat balanced, even though I'm very much a pro life person. Even so I tried my best to see a possible perspective of pro-abortionists.
So I’m going to throw my hat into this hot ring. The issue of abortion has been huge in the country for something like 30 years now? A hot point of contention and division. One side claims “right to life” while the other claims “right of choice” and both sides are extremely passionate about their stances. Sometimes I wonder if either side really understands what their fighting for, or are they simply fighting just to fight? Are the right to lifer's really fighting for the rights of the unborn children or are they simply fighting for their beliefs? Are the right to choose folks really so noble as to truly care about the rights of women to be able to choose or are they simply fighting for their own way of life? Are people really this noble? Do we really care about each others lives or rights so much that we feel we have to hold signs, get in each others faces and blow up buildings? I simply believe people are far too selfish and wicked for such nobility.
I’m betting if we could travel back in time we would’ve found a very similar type of point of contention between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists just prior to the civil war. The abolitionists passionately believed they were right. While the slave owners and supporters passionately believed they were right. Does passionately believing in something and having a significant number of followers mean you’re on the side of right? Does might make right? WWII Germany passionately believed they were right and as a consequence millions of defenseless human beings were put to death. Well what difference is there between these issues and abortion? The answer is there is no difference. Each of the above sides would’ve given us what they felt were solid reasons for their perspectives and opinions. The pro-slave folks of the south would’ve said their economy and their very lives depended on slavery. The Germans claimed the right of superiority.
There is one big difference between the above issues and abortion and that is unlike these two issues abortion could easily be avoided.
A woman could choose to practice abstinence.
The man or woman could choose to use birth control
The man or woman could choose to be snipped. (I feel if anything is going to be government sponsored it should be this option, rather than abortions.)
The woman could give up the baby for adoption
How about the right to choose before the abortion? You want to use your right to choose, well choose one of these.
Now I’m sure there are several folks on the right to life side who really do care about the lives of unborn children, but I somehow doubt this describes all of them. Now the right to choice folks, I have to admit I don’t see them as really having any kind of moral foot to stand on. The only folks who could claim any kind of nobility in this group are the truly misguided, misinformed or ignorant. All the rest are truly wicked, whether through pride, selfishness or rebellion. The personal choice to abort a life is never one made from any form of nobility. To kill or hurt the weak or helpless is never noble or good, it’s always wicked. There are no what ifs, it’s always wrong. Still a choice has to be made, self over another life. It really is just that simple.
Still I feel there’s a better way the right to lifers could handle the other side. What would Jesus do? Would He use violence or would He try to win over the misguided? Would He stretch out His hand to beat them or hand them a glass of water? Being on the side of morality and Christ is lost when you stoop to the same level as the opposing viewpoint.
Ok that’s my 2 cents on that specific aspect of this topic. Now to focus on the real issue for Christians: false idolatry or more specifically, false worship.
As we well know the relationship God had with the ancient Israelites is somewhat of a mirror of our relationship with Him, especially here in America. The real issue here for us is selfishness and false idolatry.
If we accept that God knows the hearts of men Proverbs 15:11 then we accept there is no hiding place from God. No matter what we say with our mouths, God looks directly into our hearts. We can’t hide from our evil ways. Genesis 4:10 Then why do men still bend towards evil works and justifying these evil works (like abortion)? Ecclesiastes 9:3 speaks of the evil and insanity inside men. The truth of our creation can’t coexist, in the realm of sanity, in the hearts of men without losing a grip on reality. So men forfeit the reality of God for a lie. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12
Here are a few passages from the Bible which describe the type of false idolatry many in America ascribe to: Deuteronomy 12:31 2 Kings 17:17 Psalm 106:37-38 Jeremiah 32:35. So the ancient Israelites sacrificed their sons and daughters to the flame for Molech. We sacrifice our children to the doctor for selfish ambition or selfish convenience. Abortion doctors have become nothing more then high priests to a false god and the women who go to them bow down before their alter to worship this false god and make their sacrifices, many times side by side with the father, a parent, friend, etc...
In conclusion:
This was a comparison of abortion to slavery and Nazi Germany. Why? Because all 3 of these perspectives are, or were, shared by everyday folks who believed they were absolutely right. Also all 3 of these perspectives involve(d) the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of other folks. All 3 of these perspectives also involved dehumanizing the people who were(are) oppressed or killed. Many doctors state that life only exists post birth and call the life inside of a woman a fetus and treat this life as something lower then excrement. Something fit for a sacrifice. The Nazi’s and the pro-slave owners viewed their victims as something lower then animals, as they didn’t treat animals as badly as they treated their fellow man.
My point will be lost on anyone who is diluted and doesn’t except the inherit evil inside of men. If you believe humans are inherently good then everything I’ve written will sound wacky or harsh or outdated. Yet if you believe humans are inherently good, then you’d have to forget our past. Forget the Nazi’s, forget every human empire which has ever existed (British, Roman, Greek, Assyrians, Ottoman, Babylonian, Egyptian, Aztec, etc…). There was nothing inherently good about any of these empires, nor the majority of their subjects. Only Jesus Christ’s rule will be good and just!
One last thought. As this is such a volatile subject I wish to make it perfectly clear that it is not our role to be the Holy Spirit or God’s righteous arm of judgment/punishment. As sinners we are incapable of such tasks. Hebrews 10:30. Leave the avenging and judgment to our Holy God. Our role is to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ to an unbelieving world and encourage fellow believers to live their lives to Christ.
God bless and please never forget these are the opinions of a wicked man. A sinner saved by the precious blood of Jesus Christ.
Hmm... I've reread this and edited it several times to be sure I'm not getting carried away with my emotions on this topic, as it's a very hot topic. I tried my best to keep this somewhat balanced, even though I'm very much a pro life person. Even so I tried my best to see a possible perspective of pro-abortionists.
So I’m going to throw my hat into this hot ring. The issue of abortion has been huge in the country for something like 30 years now? A hot point of contention and division. One side claims “right to life” while the other claims “right of choice” and both sides are extremely passionate about their stances. Sometimes I wonder if either side really understands what their fighting for, or are they simply fighting just to fight? Are the right to lifer's really fighting for the rights of the unborn children or are they simply fighting for their beliefs? Are the right to choose folks really so noble as to truly care about the rights of women to be able to choose or are they simply fighting for their own way of life? Are people really this noble? Do we really care about each others lives or rights so much that we feel we have to hold signs, get in each others faces and blow up buildings? I simply believe people are far too selfish and wicked for such nobility.
I’m betting if we could travel back in time we would’ve found a very similar type of point of contention between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists just prior to the civil war. The abolitionists passionately believed they were right. While the slave owners and supporters passionately believed they were right. Does passionately believing in something and having a significant number of followers mean you’re on the side of right? Does might make right? WWII Germany passionately believed they were right and as a consequence millions of defenseless human beings were put to death. Well what difference is there between these issues and abortion? The answer is there is no difference. Each of the above sides would’ve given us what they felt were solid reasons for their perspectives and opinions. The pro-slave folks of the south would’ve said their economy and their very lives depended on slavery. The Germans claimed the right of superiority.
There is one big difference between the above issues and abortion and that is unlike these two issues abortion could easily be avoided.
A woman could choose to practice abstinence.
The man or woman could choose to use birth control
The man or woman could choose to be snipped. (I feel if anything is going to be government sponsored it should be this option, rather than abortions.)
The woman could give up the baby for adoption
How about the right to choose before the abortion? You want to use your right to choose, well choose one of these.
Now I’m sure there are several folks on the right to life side who really do care about the lives of unborn children, but I somehow doubt this describes all of them. Now the right to choice folks, I have to admit I don’t see them as really having any kind of moral foot to stand on. The only folks who could claim any kind of nobility in this group are the truly misguided, misinformed or ignorant. All the rest are truly wicked, whether through pride, selfishness or rebellion. The personal choice to abort a life is never one made from any form of nobility. To kill or hurt the weak or helpless is never noble or good, it’s always wicked. There are no what ifs, it’s always wrong. Still a choice has to be made, self over another life. It really is just that simple.
Still I feel there’s a better way the right to lifers could handle the other side. What would Jesus do? Would He use violence or would He try to win over the misguided? Would He stretch out His hand to beat them or hand them a glass of water? Being on the side of morality and Christ is lost when you stoop to the same level as the opposing viewpoint.
Ok that’s my 2 cents on that specific aspect of this topic. Now to focus on the real issue for Christians: false idolatry or more specifically, false worship.
As we well know the relationship God had with the ancient Israelites is somewhat of a mirror of our relationship with Him, especially here in America. The real issue here for us is selfishness and false idolatry.
If we accept that God knows the hearts of men Proverbs 15:11 then we accept there is no hiding place from God. No matter what we say with our mouths, God looks directly into our hearts. We can’t hide from our evil ways. Genesis 4:10 Then why do men still bend towards evil works and justifying these evil works (like abortion)? Ecclesiastes 9:3 speaks of the evil and insanity inside men. The truth of our creation can’t coexist, in the realm of sanity, in the hearts of men without losing a grip on reality. So men forfeit the reality of God for a lie. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12
Here are a few passages from the Bible which describe the type of false idolatry many in America ascribe to: Deuteronomy 12:31 2 Kings 17:17 Psalm 106:37-38 Jeremiah 32:35. So the ancient Israelites sacrificed their sons and daughters to the flame for Molech. We sacrifice our children to the doctor for selfish ambition or selfish convenience. Abortion doctors have become nothing more then high priests to a false god and the women who go to them bow down before their alter to worship this false god and make their sacrifices, many times side by side with the father, a parent, friend, etc...
In conclusion:
This was a comparison of abortion to slavery and Nazi Germany. Why? Because all 3 of these perspectives are, or were, shared by everyday folks who believed they were absolutely right. Also all 3 of these perspectives involve(d) the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of other folks. All 3 of these perspectives also involved dehumanizing the people who were(are) oppressed or killed. Many doctors state that life only exists post birth and call the life inside of a woman a fetus and treat this life as something lower then excrement. Something fit for a sacrifice. The Nazi’s and the pro-slave owners viewed their victims as something lower then animals, as they didn’t treat animals as badly as they treated their fellow man.
My point will be lost on anyone who is diluted and doesn’t except the inherit evil inside of men. If you believe humans are inherently good then everything I’ve written will sound wacky or harsh or outdated. Yet if you believe humans are inherently good, then you’d have to forget our past. Forget the Nazi’s, forget every human empire which has ever existed (British, Roman, Greek, Assyrians, Ottoman, Babylonian, Egyptian, Aztec, etc…). There was nothing inherently good about any of these empires, nor the majority of their subjects. Only Jesus Christ’s rule will be good and just!
One last thought. As this is such a volatile subject I wish to make it perfectly clear that it is not our role to be the Holy Spirit or God’s righteous arm of judgment/punishment. As sinners we are incapable of such tasks. Hebrews 10:30. Leave the avenging and judgment to our Holy God. Our role is to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ to an unbelieving world and encourage fellow believers to live their lives to Christ.
God bless and please never forget these are the opinions of a wicked man. A sinner saved by the precious blood of Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
God helps those who help themselves
I sent the below letter to the pastor of the church I'm currently attending. This past Sunday he did a sermon on tithing and the evils of laziness. It was hands down the worst sermon I've heard him give since I started attending back in May. It seemed very contrived and he seemed to have a "why won't you give more money?" or "why do I have to do this every year?" type of attitude. He never touched on the joys of giving, nor how this brings glory to Jesus Christ. Instead he used trite unbiblical phrases (see the title) and harsh language in an attempt to verbally beat everyone into giving more so we can all pay for his 6 figure salary, the big screen TV's and the new sanctuary. All of which I take issue with.
Anyway, here's the letter:
Dear Pastor,
I hope and pray you are having a great start to the week. I wanted to let you know that I have been blessed to hear many of your Christ centered sermons, since I started attending Shandon in May of this year. I moved to Columbia from Charleston, SC, where I lived for 2 years. I’m currently a member of East Cooper Baptist church in Mt. Pleasant and have been contemplating moving my membership; however, I’m not sure how long God will keep me in Columbia.
Anyway, I was in attendance this past Sunday and listened to your sermon on tithing. While I found much of it edifying and within scriptural context, much like every sermon I’ve heard you give, I was, however, particularly concerned about the use of the following phrase: “God helps those who help themselves”. I had the impression you intended this to be a serious biblical statement. However, in fact this phrase is not anywhere in the Bible. I did some research, referenced 6 different interpretations of the Bible, including NIV, KJ, NKJ & NASB, as well as an internet search on the phrase. This is what I came up with (I just learned this while writing this letter): this particular phrase was first quoted (the present version) by Benjamin Franklin in “Poor Richard's Almanack” (1733 – 1758), the 1736 edition. Specifically the quote states “God helps them that help themselves.” http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#1736 However, the earliest versions of this phrase (the writing of Aesop, 600 BC & Euripides) stem from blatantly pagan, sources. http://www.fbcvilonia.com/sermons/lies/helps.htm
My understanding of Benjamin Franklin is that he wasn’t a believer in the saving blood of Jesus Christ, but a deist. He was more of a believer in himself and man’s ability to be his own god. Yes he acknowledged God (as did most spiritually minded folks of his time), but I’ve seen no evidence which demonstrates he ever believed in Jesus Christ.
This above quote, from a theological perspective, in fact is contrary to the teachings of the Bible. Romans 5:8, John 15:5, Ephesians 2:5, Luke 10:30-37 (the Good Samaritan), to mention only a few; teach of our reliance on God and His loving kindness towards the helpless. He cares for those who can’t help themselves.
I realize you were mostly likely simply trying to convey a message concerning the evil of laziness and the importance of tithing, and there is no doubt these are important teachings, especially in the American church. The problem is this particular phrase can very easily be misconstrued as an encouragement to focus on works, that is self, rather then grace, that is Jesus Christ. I realize you probably didn’t intend this, but given the author of this quote, this was most likely at least part of the original meaning.
If I misunderstood you, then please take this letter simply as the ramblings of a man who is trying to work out his salvation with fear and trembling.
Please know I prayed before I sent this letter and I also prayed that God would encourage you in your heart to continue in your ministry of bringing the truth of Jesus Christ to His flock, as well as the unbelieving world.
May God bless you Pastor and may the words of your mouth continue to glorify our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 52:7 & Romans 10:15.
Anyway, here's the letter:
Dear Pastor,
I hope and pray you are having a great start to the week. I wanted to let you know that I have been blessed to hear many of your Christ centered sermons, since I started attending Shandon in May of this year. I moved to Columbia from Charleston, SC, where I lived for 2 years. I’m currently a member of East Cooper Baptist church in Mt. Pleasant and have been contemplating moving my membership; however, I’m not sure how long God will keep me in Columbia.
Anyway, I was in attendance this past Sunday and listened to your sermon on tithing. While I found much of it edifying and within scriptural context, much like every sermon I’ve heard you give, I was, however, particularly concerned about the use of the following phrase: “God helps those who help themselves”. I had the impression you intended this to be a serious biblical statement. However, in fact this phrase is not anywhere in the Bible. I did some research, referenced 6 different interpretations of the Bible, including NIV, KJ, NKJ & NASB, as well as an internet search on the phrase. This is what I came up with (I just learned this while writing this letter): this particular phrase was first quoted (the present version) by Benjamin Franklin in “Poor Richard's Almanack” (1733 – 1758), the 1736 edition. Specifically the quote states “God helps them that help themselves.” http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#1736 However, the earliest versions of this phrase (the writing of Aesop, 600 BC & Euripides) stem from blatantly pagan, sources. http://www.fbcvilonia.com/sermons/lies/helps.htm
My understanding of Benjamin Franklin is that he wasn’t a believer in the saving blood of Jesus Christ, but a deist. He was more of a believer in himself and man’s ability to be his own god. Yes he acknowledged God (as did most spiritually minded folks of his time), but I’ve seen no evidence which demonstrates he ever believed in Jesus Christ.
This above quote, from a theological perspective, in fact is contrary to the teachings of the Bible. Romans 5:8, John 15:5, Ephesians 2:5, Luke 10:30-37 (the Good Samaritan), to mention only a few; teach of our reliance on God and His loving kindness towards the helpless. He cares for those who can’t help themselves.
I realize you were mostly likely simply trying to convey a message concerning the evil of laziness and the importance of tithing, and there is no doubt these are important teachings, especially in the American church. The problem is this particular phrase can very easily be misconstrued as an encouragement to focus on works, that is self, rather then grace, that is Jesus Christ. I realize you probably didn’t intend this, but given the author of this quote, this was most likely at least part of the original meaning.
If I misunderstood you, then please take this letter simply as the ramblings of a man who is trying to work out his salvation with fear and trembling.
Please know I prayed before I sent this letter and I also prayed that God would encourage you in your heart to continue in your ministry of bringing the truth of Jesus Christ to His flock, as well as the unbelieving world.
May God bless you Pastor and may the words of your mouth continue to glorify our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 52:7 & Romans 10:15.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Should Christians still pray before eating a meal (i.e. say grace)?
A few years ago I argued with a friend of mine over saying grace prior to eating a meal. In his opinion this act, at best, is nothing more than old meaningless tradition. At worst it is an antiquated way of puffing oneself up. While I may agree with his diagnosis of how many in the church treat this act, I disagree with “throwing the baby out with the bath water”. In my opinion I think he was just trying to justify his forgetfulness and laziness, at best.
So should we pray before we eat our meals? Absolutely! We are actually commanded to do this.
Deuteronomy 8:10-18
In verse 10 we see the commandment.
The remaining verses focus on the very likely possibility of becoming prideful over our provisions, as if we had anything to do with them.
From these verses it’s interesting to note that one verse is the commandment, but 8 verses on the downward spiral of disobedience and pride (i.e. sin).
Acts 27
Acts 27:33-38 actually focuses on this act of praising God for His provisions. From reading these verses we can see how Paul praising God for the food is:
An act of leadership. Even though Paul was the prisoner and the Roman centurion was the one person in command, it was Paul who actually took charge and obviously the one person God was working through. God gave Paul command of that ship.
Garnered respect. Through his consistent and well known relationship with Jesus Christ, Paul’s act of praising God was viewed, by the unbelievers, as consistent with his beliefs. Also the fact that Paul was doing this after 14 days without food and under constant stress, as well as the fear of death (at least until the angel appeared to him) showed validity for his beliefs to these same unbelievers.
A powerful witness and an act of encouragement. At the very least everyone on the boat believed Paul was in touch with his god, even if this god wasn’t their own.
I believed I’ve touched on this subject in a previous article, however, I feel it’s important, even if we’ve relegated this practice of praising God for our food to a dead tradition. So openly praise God for His provisions and let others see your light. Even if your head is bowed in silence, people will typically know what you're doing and trust me they're watching.
So should we pray before we eat our meals? Absolutely! We are actually commanded to do this.
Deuteronomy 8:10-18
In verse 10 we see the commandment.
The remaining verses focus on the very likely possibility of becoming prideful over our provisions, as if we had anything to do with them.
From these verses it’s interesting to note that one verse is the commandment, but 8 verses on the downward spiral of disobedience and pride (i.e. sin).
Acts 27
Acts 27:33-38 actually focuses on this act of praising God for His provisions. From reading these verses we can see how Paul praising God for the food is:
An act of leadership. Even though Paul was the prisoner and the Roman centurion was the one person in command, it was Paul who actually took charge and obviously the one person God was working through. God gave Paul command of that ship.
Garnered respect. Through his consistent and well known relationship with Jesus Christ, Paul’s act of praising God was viewed, by the unbelievers, as consistent with his beliefs. Also the fact that Paul was doing this after 14 days without food and under constant stress, as well as the fear of death (at least until the angel appeared to him) showed validity for his beliefs to these same unbelievers.
A powerful witness and an act of encouragement. At the very least everyone on the boat believed Paul was in touch with his god, even if this god wasn’t their own.
I believed I’ve touched on this subject in a previous article, however, I feel it’s important, even if we’ve relegated this practice of praising God for our food to a dead tradition. So openly praise God for His provisions and let others see your light. Even if your head is bowed in silence, people will typically know what you're doing and trust me they're watching.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Deuteronomy 8:2-5
This is more like something I’d typically write down in my journal. Closer to random thoughts then a firm grasp of the topics. I’m definitely still learning about much of this; however, it’s exciting to find the correlations between OT and NT teachings. This is the type of stuff I get very excited about as the Holy Spirit uses other scriptures I’ve read and studied to bring new light (for me) to “old” scriptures. The only problem is that this can really blow up, as the entire Bible is weaved very tightly together.
Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. Your clothes did not wear out and your feet did not swell during these forty years. Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the LORD your God disciplines you.
NT references:
The below NT verses directly teach on the above OT verses. Matthew 4:1-11 & John 4:1-42 directly refer to suffering temptation and the true bread of life, meaning of course Jesus. Jesus actually quotes part of verse 3 to Satan during His temptation.
Hebrews 12:1-12 Verse 5 (in Deuteronomy) above speaks to God’s motivation for discipline as well as the reason a man should discipline his son.
Hebrews 5:1-10 (Christ’s obedience bought salvation) Hebrews 5:8 speaks to the importance of obedience and its relationship to suffering.
Romans 5:1-11 (encouragement through trials) Why must we suffer through trials? The short answer: because we are sinners. The longer answer takes a lifetime to answer. However, these verses in Romans provide us a great deal of clarity.
2 Corinthians 1:3-7 (Why must we suffer?) One particular use for suffering, as it relates to glorifying Jesus. It can be a powerful ministry tool as the one suffering matures.
Matthew 6:25-34 (Do not worry) We ought not worry about our clothes nor what we eat. These verses in Deuteronomy speak of a subtle miracle done by God as an act of love to His children. Though they complained and rebelled, He still loved on them and supplied for all their needs, even though they never acknowledged this, except through Moses.
I want to delve deeper into Deuteronomy chapters 8 & 9. I read them a few days ago and they’ve stuck with me, for some reason. I believe there is a wealth of knowledge and explanation in these verses and as I’ve pointed out, the NT references, or stays precisely in line, with the OT.
Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. Your clothes did not wear out and your feet did not swell during these forty years. Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the LORD your God disciplines you.
NT references:
The below NT verses directly teach on the above OT verses. Matthew 4:1-11 & John 4:1-42 directly refer to suffering temptation and the true bread of life, meaning of course Jesus. Jesus actually quotes part of verse 3 to Satan during His temptation.
Hebrews 12:1-12 Verse 5 (in Deuteronomy) above speaks to God’s motivation for discipline as well as the reason a man should discipline his son.
Hebrews 5:1-10 (Christ’s obedience bought salvation) Hebrews 5:8 speaks to the importance of obedience and its relationship to suffering.
Romans 5:1-11 (encouragement through trials) Why must we suffer through trials? The short answer: because we are sinners. The longer answer takes a lifetime to answer. However, these verses in Romans provide us a great deal of clarity.
2 Corinthians 1:3-7 (Why must we suffer?) One particular use for suffering, as it relates to glorifying Jesus. It can be a powerful ministry tool as the one suffering matures.
Matthew 6:25-34 (Do not worry) We ought not worry about our clothes nor what we eat. These verses in Deuteronomy speak of a subtle miracle done by God as an act of love to His children. Though they complained and rebelled, He still loved on them and supplied for all their needs, even though they never acknowledged this, except through Moses.
I want to delve deeper into Deuteronomy chapters 8 & 9. I read them a few days ago and they’ve stuck with me, for some reason. I believe there is a wealth of knowledge and explanation in these verses and as I’ve pointed out, the NT references, or stays precisely in line, with the OT.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
A caution against the doctrine of man (or woman)
Be careful how much you admire or listen to others who claim to be someone. Be careful who you consider yourself to be a disciple of. Many teachers here in America are very wealthy, even by American standards, and this should be a tremendous concern in itself. How much money do you think your pastor makes? How much money does Norman Giesler or Beth Moore or John Eldridge make? How much do they give away? How much do they spend on comforts for themselves and their families? Does this mean they know nothing about Jesus Christ? Not necessarily. It just means they have a completely unnecessary temptation living with them everyday. An unnecessary temptation which may cause them to worship something other then God. (Matthew 19:24)
A Christian should only be a disciple of Jesus Christ and His teachings and the only source of truth is the bible. This means Calvin, the Apostle’s Creed, C.S. Lewis (one of my favorite authors), Jonathan Edwards (another favorite) and any of the above mentioned folks, can and will be wrong at times, no matter how strong or mature they appear to be. This is why we ought to read the Bible every day, multiple times preferably. This way we’ll be able to discern truth from opinion.
For instance, up until recently I simply believed what the Apostle’s Creed was biblical fact (see previous article ‘Did Jesus Descend into Hell?’. However, a friend recently challenged the validity of this teaching based on the lack of direct support found in scripture. This makes this supposed “truth” actually a doctrine of man. So up until one of my friends confronted me about this I had thought this was biblical truth.
This past Sunday morning, during a small group time, a topic was brought up which has concerned me ever since I heard it. Someone briefly discussed a teaching of Beth Moore which goes something like “we were created specifically for this time” and “we are more blessed now because we believe without seeing”. I admit I know almost nothing about Beth Moore. However, the fact that we were created for this time and elected prior to our births can be supported in Romans 9:10-12, among many other supporting verses. However, the scriptures Beth Moore references for her teaching (John 20:28-30) do not clearly support the belief that we have more faith, or are more blessed then the folks in the early church. If this is what Beth Moore teaches then I strongly disagree with her. We believe Jesus rose from the grave, but when was the last time any of us heard of someone, like Peter, raising someone from the dead (Acts 9)? Now that’s great faith!
If anything the opposite would be more true, especially here in the American church where we horde our wealth, love our material possessions, passionately protect our independence (even from God), arrogantly believe we own or are the keepers of the gospel for the world, arrogantly believe we know God and His truth, rarely take risks for Christ and continually look to flesh and blood for answers, much like the ancient Israelites who wanted a king other then God and received Saul (1 Samuel 8). However, what we need to do is very simple. Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind and soul. Love thy neighbor as thyself. I will boldly tell you that any teaching which contradicts or takes away from these essential truths is a false doctrine. Mark 12:28-34 & Matthew 22:34-40.
A good Litmus test for truth:
Every doctrine must line up with the Word in order to be true; however, many people (as well as satan) have perverted scripture (Matthew 4:1-11). Along with reading the Word and praying another practice I use to discern God’s truth from man’s, is to answer the following question: Who is more glorified by a specific doctrine or interpretation, Jesus Christ or man? If man then it is false. If I’m made to feel above or better then anyone, alive or dead, then I’m hearing false doctrine. If pride swells in my heart from hearing a teaching, then it is false, as this feeling is not from God. If however, I’m brought to my knees in humbleness, desire to repent and confess my sins to Jesus Christ and glorify His name, then I’m made right with God.
If I misquoted or misunderstood this teaching by Beth Moore then please feel free to correct me.
A Christian should only be a disciple of Jesus Christ and His teachings and the only source of truth is the bible. This means Calvin, the Apostle’s Creed, C.S. Lewis (one of my favorite authors), Jonathan Edwards (another favorite) and any of the above mentioned folks, can and will be wrong at times, no matter how strong or mature they appear to be. This is why we ought to read the Bible every day, multiple times preferably. This way we’ll be able to discern truth from opinion.
For instance, up until recently I simply believed what the Apostle’s Creed was biblical fact (see previous article ‘Did Jesus Descend into Hell?’. However, a friend recently challenged the validity of this teaching based on the lack of direct support found in scripture. This makes this supposed “truth” actually a doctrine of man. So up until one of my friends confronted me about this I had thought this was biblical truth.
This past Sunday morning, during a small group time, a topic was brought up which has concerned me ever since I heard it. Someone briefly discussed a teaching of Beth Moore which goes something like “we were created specifically for this time” and “we are more blessed now because we believe without seeing”. I admit I know almost nothing about Beth Moore. However, the fact that we were created for this time and elected prior to our births can be supported in Romans 9:10-12, among many other supporting verses. However, the scriptures Beth Moore references for her teaching (John 20:28-30) do not clearly support the belief that we have more faith, or are more blessed then the folks in the early church. If this is what Beth Moore teaches then I strongly disagree with her. We believe Jesus rose from the grave, but when was the last time any of us heard of someone, like Peter, raising someone from the dead (Acts 9)? Now that’s great faith!
If anything the opposite would be more true, especially here in the American church where we horde our wealth, love our material possessions, passionately protect our independence (even from God), arrogantly believe we own or are the keepers of the gospel for the world, arrogantly believe we know God and His truth, rarely take risks for Christ and continually look to flesh and blood for answers, much like the ancient Israelites who wanted a king other then God and received Saul (1 Samuel 8). However, what we need to do is very simple. Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind and soul. Love thy neighbor as thyself. I will boldly tell you that any teaching which contradicts or takes away from these essential truths is a false doctrine. Mark 12:28-34 & Matthew 22:34-40.
A good Litmus test for truth:
Every doctrine must line up with the Word in order to be true; however, many people (as well as satan) have perverted scripture (Matthew 4:1-11). Along with reading the Word and praying another practice I use to discern God’s truth from man’s, is to answer the following question: Who is more glorified by a specific doctrine or interpretation, Jesus Christ or man? If man then it is false. If I’m made to feel above or better then anyone, alive or dead, then I’m hearing false doctrine. If pride swells in my heart from hearing a teaching, then it is false, as this feeling is not from God. If however, I’m brought to my knees in humbleness, desire to repent and confess my sins to Jesus Christ and glorify His name, then I’m made right with God.
If I misquoted or misunderstood this teaching by Beth Moore then please feel free to correct me.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
A Kiss from a Rose
Ok so I’m a bit of Seal fan.
During the same conversation about whether or not the Bible indicates Jesus did a pop-in on hell we also discussed dating and some of the issues and frustrations faced by both sexes in the Christian universe, versus the Marvel or DC universes (for any former or current comic book fans). Anyway, specifically we discussed whether kissing is acceptable or not in dating. I just had a flashback of high school. For some reason this topic seems like such a high school-ish topic. However, I believe many Christians struggle with this, or worse don’t even think about the consequences.
First I’ll look at the definition of kiss: “to touch with the lips especially as a mark of affection or greeting”. In its purest form a kiss is innocent. As Christians we are actually encouraged to kiss one another: Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12 & 1 Thessalonians 5:26. Not to get on too much of a rabbit trail, but how often do we see or participate in this holy kiss? Also how often do we see and participate in hugging each other? God has provided these two forms of physical contact as means of encouragement for the body, in a plutonic sense of course. 1 Timothy 5:2 teaches men how we ought to view and treat our sisters in Christ (single or married, it makes no difference).
Honestly to me most of my brothers and sisters seem very 2 dimensional to me. We are so uptight we can’t even make ourselves vulnerable enough to obey the Word, even though it’s good for us. And we wonder why depression is such a huge issue in our culture. We’re physical beings created for physical interaction. This is why it feels good to be and get hugged or kissed. However, this would be a complete 180 in our perspective on physical touching. Physical touching (up to and including sex in marriage) should be a form of affection and encouragement. It should always be about the other person. Perhaps because we disobey scripture which states that we should engage in more physical encouragement, we now struggle with sinful physical contact in dating relationships? This is my belief, at least, as to the why kissing has become any kind of an issue in Christian dating relationships.
So I’ve established there’s nothing wrong with kissing or hugging for holy encouragement. However, if we look again at 1 Timothy 5:2 as scripture which is not only directed at the men, but also the women, we will see that it is the woman’s responsibility to encourage the men to treat them with absolute purity.
So we come to the question: Is kissing ok in a Christian dating relationship or not? First I’ll reference the 10 commandments and Matthew 5:27-28. So yes it’s ok to kiss your boyfriend or girlfriend, provided you can do it without disobeying Matthew 5:27-28 and 1 Timothy 5:2. My question is; why not simply wait till marriage? Is Christ glorified by engaging in this act prior to marriage? Are you somehow drawn closer to God? Someone once told me that I ought not engage in any activity with my girlfriend which I wouldn’t with my own flesh and blood sister, at least prior to marriage (not the sister). Now I don’t have a sister, but this seems fairly simple to me.
Another predicament is with the women folk. Most women I’ve known seem to almost need this intimate level of physical touch to know the guy loves them or cares about them. For me personally I would most likely be breaking Jesus Christ’s commandment in Matthew 5:27-28, if I were to kiss a woman I’m dating. Also, plenty of guys kiss women, even have sex with women, they don’t really care for at all, so I’m not sure I completely buy what my female friends are telling me. In my opinion this all comes down to sinful/selfish desire. I believe both men and women feed off of each others desire for one another.
Everyone wants to be wanted, but it’s where we look for this ownership that’s the concern. We should be looking to Jesus and His desire for us. I realize many single men and women roll their eyes at this topic or perhaps label someone with my convictions as a prude, but I believe judgment is that big of a deal. I also don’t want to have to bear the weight of guilt from being intimately involved with a woman (essentially claiming ownership of her body) and then rejecting her. I believe that kissing is part of sex. The initial step, but sex none the less. Ownership comes with marriage. Any form of physical intimacy before marriage is selfishly claiming ownership without any form of commitment.
In conclusion, why not try to communicate with your significant other using non sexual methods, like talking or writing or giving flowers or gifts or physically with hugs and holy kisses? 50% of all marriages in the church fail. That’s keeping up with the world, so we're doing something wrong. Maybe some of these marriages would’ve worked out if both parties weren’t so selfish, waited for marriage and learned to communicate with each other?
Just my 2 cents.
During the same conversation about whether or not the Bible indicates Jesus did a pop-in on hell we also discussed dating and some of the issues and frustrations faced by both sexes in the Christian universe, versus the Marvel or DC universes (for any former or current comic book fans). Anyway, specifically we discussed whether kissing is acceptable or not in dating. I just had a flashback of high school. For some reason this topic seems like such a high school-ish topic. However, I believe many Christians struggle with this, or worse don’t even think about the consequences.
First I’ll look at the definition of kiss: “to touch with the lips especially as a mark of affection or greeting”. In its purest form a kiss is innocent. As Christians we are actually encouraged to kiss one another: Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12 & 1 Thessalonians 5:26. Not to get on too much of a rabbit trail, but how often do we see or participate in this holy kiss? Also how often do we see and participate in hugging each other? God has provided these two forms of physical contact as means of encouragement for the body, in a plutonic sense of course. 1 Timothy 5:2 teaches men how we ought to view and treat our sisters in Christ (single or married, it makes no difference).
Honestly to me most of my brothers and sisters seem very 2 dimensional to me. We are so uptight we can’t even make ourselves vulnerable enough to obey the Word, even though it’s good for us. And we wonder why depression is such a huge issue in our culture. We’re physical beings created for physical interaction. This is why it feels good to be and get hugged or kissed. However, this would be a complete 180 in our perspective on physical touching. Physical touching (up to and including sex in marriage) should be a form of affection and encouragement. It should always be about the other person. Perhaps because we disobey scripture which states that we should engage in more physical encouragement, we now struggle with sinful physical contact in dating relationships? This is my belief, at least, as to the why kissing has become any kind of an issue in Christian dating relationships.
So I’ve established there’s nothing wrong with kissing or hugging for holy encouragement. However, if we look again at 1 Timothy 5:2 as scripture which is not only directed at the men, but also the women, we will see that it is the woman’s responsibility to encourage the men to treat them with absolute purity.
So we come to the question: Is kissing ok in a Christian dating relationship or not? First I’ll reference the 10 commandments and Matthew 5:27-28. So yes it’s ok to kiss your boyfriend or girlfriend, provided you can do it without disobeying Matthew 5:27-28 and 1 Timothy 5:2. My question is; why not simply wait till marriage? Is Christ glorified by engaging in this act prior to marriage? Are you somehow drawn closer to God? Someone once told me that I ought not engage in any activity with my girlfriend which I wouldn’t with my own flesh and blood sister, at least prior to marriage (not the sister). Now I don’t have a sister, but this seems fairly simple to me.
Another predicament is with the women folk. Most women I’ve known seem to almost need this intimate level of physical touch to know the guy loves them or cares about them. For me personally I would most likely be breaking Jesus Christ’s commandment in Matthew 5:27-28, if I were to kiss a woman I’m dating. Also, plenty of guys kiss women, even have sex with women, they don’t really care for at all, so I’m not sure I completely buy what my female friends are telling me. In my opinion this all comes down to sinful/selfish desire. I believe both men and women feed off of each others desire for one another.
Everyone wants to be wanted, but it’s where we look for this ownership that’s the concern. We should be looking to Jesus and His desire for us. I realize many single men and women roll their eyes at this topic or perhaps label someone with my convictions as a prude, but I believe judgment is that big of a deal. I also don’t want to have to bear the weight of guilt from being intimately involved with a woman (essentially claiming ownership of her body) and then rejecting her. I believe that kissing is part of sex. The initial step, but sex none the less. Ownership comes with marriage. Any form of physical intimacy before marriage is selfishly claiming ownership without any form of commitment.
In conclusion, why not try to communicate with your significant other using non sexual methods, like talking or writing or giving flowers or gifts or physically with hugs and holy kisses? 50% of all marriages in the church fail. That’s keeping up with the world, so we're doing something wrong. Maybe some of these marriages would’ve worked out if both parties weren’t so selfish, waited for marriage and learned to communicate with each other?
Just my 2 cents.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Did Jesus Descend into Hell?
I was having a conversation the other day, over dinner, with Greg, Samantha and a few other folks. (I only mention Greg and Sam’s names because our other friends don’t yet exist in the blog world.) Anyway, amongst conversations about dating, marriage and desires, we somehow ended up discussing the common belief that Jesus Christ descended to hell during the 3 days. Both Sam and I agreed that this was most definitely in the Bible and I was rather vehemently convinced of this fact (or so I thought). However, Greg held his ground and mentioned that he had actually researched this very topic and found that this premise is only discussed in the Apostles Creed (hyper link provided by Sam). Soooo, now after performing several word searches on “hell”, “Hades”, “descend” and “keys” I’ve come up lacking. Greg was correct. The Bible most definitely does not state that Jesus descended to hell.
This realization again brings up my same frustration with false teaching in the church. Obviously the concept of Jesus descending to hell to get the keys has been drilled into me head by someone, as I’ve never even studied the Apostles Creed. I’ve heard of it, but never researched it. I don’t care if every “saint” and supposed godly wise man who ever existed states something. If the teaching is outside of scripture it ought not to be taught. Discussed, yes, taught, absolutely NO.
So Greg, you were right and I was wrong. Everyone else feel free to pipe in (if anyone still reads this blog. I know I’ve been very bad about keeping up on this).
Here are the relevant (or not so relevant) verses I found during my word searches. None clearly reference this concept:
Acts 2:26-28
Matthew 16:17-20
Revelation 1:17-19
Revelation 20:13-15
Yes there are many possible inferences, but nothing clear. I recently completed an OT study and I don’t recall anything there which would elude to this belief either.
Again this is an open topic. This is the first time in my life I’ve ever pondered this, so please comment and share, which ever side you agree with. These are simply my preliminary findings. If I find any more pertinent scripture I will post them.
This realization again brings up my same frustration with false teaching in the church. Obviously the concept of Jesus descending to hell to get the keys has been drilled into me head by someone, as I’ve never even studied the Apostles Creed. I’ve heard of it, but never researched it. I don’t care if every “saint” and supposed godly wise man who ever existed states something. If the teaching is outside of scripture it ought not to be taught. Discussed, yes, taught, absolutely NO.
So Greg, you were right and I was wrong. Everyone else feel free to pipe in (if anyone still reads this blog. I know I’ve been very bad about keeping up on this).
Here are the relevant (or not so relevant) verses I found during my word searches. None clearly reference this concept:
Acts 2:26-28
Matthew 16:17-20
Revelation 1:17-19
Revelation 20:13-15
Yes there are many possible inferences, but nothing clear. I recently completed an OT study and I don’t recall anything there which would elude to this belief either.
Again this is an open topic. This is the first time in my life I’ve ever pondered this, so please comment and share, which ever side you agree with. These are simply my preliminary findings. If I find any more pertinent scripture I will post them.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Validating Mark
If I have any readers left, after my long hiatus, then my apologies. Life has been more hectic then usual. I've been meaning to write an article for the past few weeks.
Anyway, I was listening to good ole Johnny Cash reading the NT this morning, specifically Luke 10:17-20. Well I was thinking about Mark 16:9-20 in light of these verses in Luke chapter 10. I've always wondered about these verses in Mark. They always seemed kind of hokey and then of course there's the disclaimer in the NIV: "((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))". Why did they put this right in the middle of the text? For this one reason I'm so much a big fan of this particular translation. Either it's a part of the Bible or not. This passage appears in every other translation, so it's suppose to be there. End of discussion! Further these verses in Luke 10 validate the verses in Mark 16. I believe both of these passages refer more to spiritual rather then carnal matters. I mean how would Jesus be glorified by allowing yourself to be biten by snakes anyway?
Anyway, I was listening to good ole Johnny Cash reading the NT this morning, specifically Luke 10:17-20. Well I was thinking about Mark 16:9-20 in light of these verses in Luke chapter 10. I've always wondered about these verses in Mark. They always seemed kind of hokey and then of course there's the disclaimer in the NIV: "((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))". Why did they put this right in the middle of the text? For this one reason I'm so much a big fan of this particular translation. Either it's a part of the Bible or not. This passage appears in every other translation, so it's suppose to be there. End of discussion! Further these verses in Luke 10 validate the verses in Mark 16. I believe both of these passages refer more to spiritual rather then carnal matters. I mean how would Jesus be glorified by allowing yourself to be biten by snakes anyway?
Friday, August 04, 2006
Judas saved?
A few years ago an acquaintance of mine shared his perspective that Judas is in heaven. His view was that Judas was a tool of God and used to glorify Jesus. He said that he believe Judas was trying to force Jesus’ hand. He believed that Judas intentionally betrayed Jesus to force Jesus to reveal His power and become king, not only of Israel, but the world.
While I disagree with the conclusion, I don’t disagree with the points he made. Keep in mind Judas was one of the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ. This means he witnessed most, if not all, of Jesus’ miracles, including raising Lazarus from the dead. This also means that Judas was sent out to cast out demons and perform miracles in the name of Jesus. Matthew 10:1 So did Judas doubt the power of Jesus Christ? No. Did Judas believe Jesus is king? Yes. Was Judas obedient? No. Was Judas ever looking for a savior? Or better yet did he even believe he needed one? Probably not. I believe Judas was trying to force Jesus’ hand. His last ditch effort to remove the Romans and become a ruler, with Jesus, over the entire world.
Judas and satan John 13:26-28
The fleeting heart of Judas Mark 14:1-10
The greed of Judas John 12:1-8
In the end it really wasn’t about the money. Matthew 27:3-10
The demise of Judas Acts 1:15-22
Simon the sorcerer: A disciple of Judas Acts 8:9-24
I found this notion that Judas is in heaven with Jesus to be absurd as I highly doubt Jesus would’ve leveled such a harsh curse/prophecy concerning Judas (Mark 14:21) if he were actually going to be seated with Jesus. Many evil men and women have been used by God, even satan has been used by God to reveal His true glory before men. Does this mean satan will be redeemed? Of course not, this notion is absurd because we know his end, but isn’t this the same end for all who refuse to believe? These types of creatures only seek to unseat God and they are only concerned with their only bellies or coffers (see satan, Judas, Esau and Cain for starters). We are all deserving of hell, but these types of creatures not only deserve hell, but seemingly almost welcome it as they absolutely refuse to see the truth. The truth was never in them and so they would be unable to understand God, even if He were seated in front of them, so how could they ever be with Jesus in fellowship? If their eyes have never been opened, and worse they refuse to open them in this life, then how could they appreciate fellowship with a holy God?
This is our life, here, while we still take in breath. We ought not chase after the rewards of this world, but the eternal rewards for those who love God. This is our opportunity to take in Jesus Christ, to not only hear His calling, but seek to understand His truth. Today is all we have and so today is our opportunity to be open to Him. Hebrews 4:6-7
While I disagree with the conclusion, I don’t disagree with the points he made. Keep in mind Judas was one of the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ. This means he witnessed most, if not all, of Jesus’ miracles, including raising Lazarus from the dead. This also means that Judas was sent out to cast out demons and perform miracles in the name of Jesus. Matthew 10:1 So did Judas doubt the power of Jesus Christ? No. Did Judas believe Jesus is king? Yes. Was Judas obedient? No. Was Judas ever looking for a savior? Or better yet did he even believe he needed one? Probably not. I believe Judas was trying to force Jesus’ hand. His last ditch effort to remove the Romans and become a ruler, with Jesus, over the entire world.
Judas and satan John 13:26-28
The fleeting heart of Judas Mark 14:1-10
The greed of Judas John 12:1-8
In the end it really wasn’t about the money. Matthew 27:3-10
The demise of Judas Acts 1:15-22
Simon the sorcerer: A disciple of Judas Acts 8:9-24
I found this notion that Judas is in heaven with Jesus to be absurd as I highly doubt Jesus would’ve leveled such a harsh curse/prophecy concerning Judas (Mark 14:21) if he were actually going to be seated with Jesus. Many evil men and women have been used by God, even satan has been used by God to reveal His true glory before men. Does this mean satan will be redeemed? Of course not, this notion is absurd because we know his end, but isn’t this the same end for all who refuse to believe? These types of creatures only seek to unseat God and they are only concerned with their only bellies or coffers (see satan, Judas, Esau and Cain for starters). We are all deserving of hell, but these types of creatures not only deserve hell, but seemingly almost welcome it as they absolutely refuse to see the truth. The truth was never in them and so they would be unable to understand God, even if He were seated in front of them, so how could they ever be with Jesus in fellowship? If their eyes have never been opened, and worse they refuse to open them in this life, then how could they appreciate fellowship with a holy God?
This is our life, here, while we still take in breath. We ought not chase after the rewards of this world, but the eternal rewards for those who love God. This is our opportunity to take in Jesus Christ, to not only hear His calling, but seek to understand His truth. Today is all we have and so today is our opportunity to be open to Him. Hebrews 4:6-7
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Sombody Save Me!
Two for the price of one! ;)
Good ole Remy Zero!
I got on a roll with my previous posting and the below rabbit trail evolved into another posting. I guess you could call this "the problem with multi-mega churches part 4".
False teachings have led church leaders to actually believe the church, and not Jesus Christ, can save the world. Just by attending, church leaders suppose that the entire congregation is saved or at least tolerable. We now see the utter failure of this false teaching and thinking as the world intrudes all the more into the church and thereby dilutes the saltiness. By isolating ourselves from the unbelieving world we have allowed this world to intrude into the church with no repercussions as the immoral brother or sister is virtually never expelled and true accountability is almost non-existent, replaced by support groups where instead of being condemned sin is seen as something we can’t help. Need I even get into the general lack of preaching on repentence? Yes we are born into sin, but never should sin be lauded as anything other then reprehensible before our Holy and sovereign God, especially in light of the high price paid for our forgiveness. The church has essentially cheapened this forgiveness and a pursuit of holiness is seen as prudish. Where accountability is virtually non-existent, discipleship follows, again replaced by these contrived support groups (singles, single again, married, older married, etc...). Essentially this communicates to the congregation that the church knows best how to implement holy relationships. This leaves little room for the working of the Holy Spirit to form accountability and discipleship relationships as the church impatiently contrives these relationships instead of fostering and encouraging them.
I don’t want to attend a men’s only Bible study. I don't want to drive 10 to 30 minutes to this guy’s house so that I can sit around with a bunch of guys and read the Bible, especially after I just spent the entire day working around guys. Outside of the fact that sometimes I simply desire the sensitivity of a sister in Christ, I can read the Bible by myself and probably get more out of it. Besides, what are the chances that I’m really going to click with any of these guys enough to form a discipleship or accountability relationship with? I’ve been to several guys Bible study groups and unfortunately most of these guys don’t exhibit much in the way of any kind of spiritual gifts, or they're afraid of looking uncool or at best seem to be at the very beginning stages of their faith (baby Christians) and not truly seeming to be seeking after the appropriate things. You might say “then why don’t you help these guys out?” Why? Because I essentially believe this would be throwing pearls to swine Matthew 7:6, in most cases.
I’ve met true baby Christians before and I was one many many years ago. A true “baby Christian” will be so on fire for Jesus Christ that I would be put to shame before them as I realize how much I’ve pissed on what they now hold dear. I would be put to shame as they remind me when Jesus first opened my eyes to the truth that an impossible weight had been lifted from me and the massive flood of grace released as a result. Perhaps this is why Christians of old always bow down to worship angels? Perhaps the fact that they had just stood in the presence of a holy God whose light (even indirectly) shamed them almost to death, if that were possible? Isaiah 6:5 Just perhaps.
The first reaction of a “baby” Christian should be to either learn as much as they can as quickly as they can and/or tell everyone about their savior Jesus Christ. Tell me how often have you met these folks? Have you ever experienced this sensation? If you haven’t then you’re truly missing out. It’s better then falling in love because it’s truly falling in love. It’s finding your real soul mate and then realizing He first found you. 1 John 4:19
Let me give you a little bit of advice, place yourself around these folks. Not for their good, but for your own. Yes you may be able to offer them fellowship, but you’ll learn more from them as you witness the Holy Spirit at work in them. Meanwhile you’ll be put to shame by their childlike humility and sincerity and desire this for yourself, or at least you should. Trust me, pray to God, in sincerity of your heart, in the holy name of Jesus Christ and He will hear and act.
Matthew 5:13-16
Prayer:
Father God in heaven, forgive me for my sins and my wretchedness as a wicked rebellious, unloving man. Forgive me in the holy name of Jesus Christ who bore my sins at Calvary. If it’s your will please instill in me a desire to pursue holiness, not for my own glory, but for the glory of Jesus Christ who is worthy of all praise.
I pray you would make me nothing and strip me of everything you’ve blessed me with, if it will save my eternal soul. Father, if it’s your will, release me from my bonds, but if it’s not then please help me to see the grace which you have poured down upon me from your dwelling place. If it’s your will, take this feeble body and put it to the work and furtherance of thy kingdom. In the precious holy name of Jesus Christ I pray.
Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
Good ole Remy Zero!
I got on a roll with my previous posting and the below rabbit trail evolved into another posting. I guess you could call this "the problem with multi-mega churches part 4".
False teachings have led church leaders to actually believe the church, and not Jesus Christ, can save the world. Just by attending, church leaders suppose that the entire congregation is saved or at least tolerable. We now see the utter failure of this false teaching and thinking as the world intrudes all the more into the church and thereby dilutes the saltiness. By isolating ourselves from the unbelieving world we have allowed this world to intrude into the church with no repercussions as the immoral brother or sister is virtually never expelled and true accountability is almost non-existent, replaced by support groups where instead of being condemned sin is seen as something we can’t help. Need I even get into the general lack of preaching on repentence? Yes we are born into sin, but never should sin be lauded as anything other then reprehensible before our Holy and sovereign God, especially in light of the high price paid for our forgiveness. The church has essentially cheapened this forgiveness and a pursuit of holiness is seen as prudish. Where accountability is virtually non-existent, discipleship follows, again replaced by these contrived support groups (singles, single again, married, older married, etc...). Essentially this communicates to the congregation that the church knows best how to implement holy relationships. This leaves little room for the working of the Holy Spirit to form accountability and discipleship relationships as the church impatiently contrives these relationships instead of fostering and encouraging them.
I don’t want to attend a men’s only Bible study. I don't want to drive 10 to 30 minutes to this guy’s house so that I can sit around with a bunch of guys and read the Bible, especially after I just spent the entire day working around guys. Outside of the fact that sometimes I simply desire the sensitivity of a sister in Christ, I can read the Bible by myself and probably get more out of it. Besides, what are the chances that I’m really going to click with any of these guys enough to form a discipleship or accountability relationship with? I’ve been to several guys Bible study groups and unfortunately most of these guys don’t exhibit much in the way of any kind of spiritual gifts, or they're afraid of looking uncool or at best seem to be at the very beginning stages of their faith (baby Christians) and not truly seeming to be seeking after the appropriate things. You might say “then why don’t you help these guys out?” Why? Because I essentially believe this would be throwing pearls to swine Matthew 7:6, in most cases.
I’ve met true baby Christians before and I was one many many years ago. A true “baby Christian” will be so on fire for Jesus Christ that I would be put to shame before them as I realize how much I’ve pissed on what they now hold dear. I would be put to shame as they remind me when Jesus first opened my eyes to the truth that an impossible weight had been lifted from me and the massive flood of grace released as a result. Perhaps this is why Christians of old always bow down to worship angels? Perhaps the fact that they had just stood in the presence of a holy God whose light (even indirectly) shamed them almost to death, if that were possible? Isaiah 6:5 Just perhaps.
The first reaction of a “baby” Christian should be to either learn as much as they can as quickly as they can and/or tell everyone about their savior Jesus Christ. Tell me how often have you met these folks? Have you ever experienced this sensation? If you haven’t then you’re truly missing out. It’s better then falling in love because it’s truly falling in love. It’s finding your real soul mate and then realizing He first found you. 1 John 4:19
Let me give you a little bit of advice, place yourself around these folks. Not for their good, but for your own. Yes you may be able to offer them fellowship, but you’ll learn more from them as you witness the Holy Spirit at work in them. Meanwhile you’ll be put to shame by their childlike humility and sincerity and desire this for yourself, or at least you should. Trust me, pray to God, in sincerity of your heart, in the holy name of Jesus Christ and He will hear and act.
Matthew 5:13-16
Prayer:
Father God in heaven, forgive me for my sins and my wretchedness as a wicked rebellious, unloving man. Forgive me in the holy name of Jesus Christ who bore my sins at Calvary. If it’s your will please instill in me a desire to pursue holiness, not for my own glory, but for the glory of Jesus Christ who is worthy of all praise.
I pray you would make me nothing and strip me of everything you’ve blessed me with, if it will save my eternal soul. Father, if it’s your will, release me from my bonds, but if it’s not then please help me to see the grace which you have poured down upon me from your dwelling place. If it’s your will, take this feeble body and put it to the work and furtherance of thy kingdom. In the precious holy name of Jesus Christ I pray.
Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
Pluck out Your Eye?
Most mornings I pop in Johnny Cash and listen to him read the NT. As I was following this routine the other day I listened to Johnny read Matthew. Specifically, he read Matthew 5:27-30. So I’m listening to Jesus instruct His disciples to essentially dismember themselves in order to avoid sin.
There are only 3 possible interpretations (that I’m aware of) of this teaching. The first is the literal. In other words, Jesus quite literally instructed His disciples to avoid any hint of sin in their lives, at all costs. The second is the non-literal. Jesus was simply trying to make a very dramatic point that sin is really bad. Obviously Jesus wasn’t referring to mutilation of our bodies. The third interpretation is that Jesus was referring to His body. That is the body of Christ, His bride the church.
I would guess most, if not everyone, would disagree with the first literal translation, except a few crazy monks back in the day. I was taught, as I believe most folks have, the 2nd interpretation (or a close version), especially in light of verses 27 & 28. Now I’m not totally convinced the 2nd interpretation is bad, but it doesn’t seem to hold up with solid doctrine.
Regarding man’s useless designs to avoid sin read 1 John 1:8-10. Isn’t the severity of sin more dramatically demonstrated as truly wicked and evil in that Jesus had to die for ours? I would think this would be a better demonstration then a discussion on a non-literal teaching of dismembering oneself. However, due to our myriad of sins and self focus, Jesus did employ several different perspectives and stories to get across His point.
The 1st interpretation abdicates desecration of the temple of God. Yes Jesus’ body was tortured to the point of death, but He didn’t do it to Himself. He allowed this event to happen and it wasn’t to avoid His own sin, but to achieve forgiveness of sins for the world. This wasn’t desecration, but glorification of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, where Jesus was born without sin, we are born into sin. Therefore, if we hold to the 1st interpretation, then all Christians would either have to dismember themselves or be taken up by God prior to birth given Ephesians 1:4-7. Also another result of this line of thinking, both with the 1st & 2nd interpretations, we would have to isolate ourselves from the unbelieving world. In fact we know this is impossible as it’s being implemented and utterly failing in America in nearly every church (a bit more on this in my next posting). Not to mention the Great Commission in Mark 16:14-18, in which Jesus Christ directly teaches against this. Then the Holy Spirit teaches against this in 1 Corinthians 5:9-10, via Paul. So following either the 1st or 2nd interpretations how are we to be the salt of the world or the light on the hill?
Again another issue I have with the 2nd interpretation is that it seems to abdicate works over faith. In other words, if I figuratively pluck out my eye, I can become more pleasing to God. I now have the power to do something to directly effect the way God looks at me and thereby manipulate Him, much as others use suicide attacks or confess sins to a priest, to please God. My problem with this is that God is pleased with Christians, not because of anything any of us could ever do, but because of what Jesus Christ has already done. Though it seems James teaches works over faith, this is a false interpretation of these teachings. Works are a fruit of faith in Jesus Christ. The good works of a Christian have nothing to do with mans’ inherit goodness, or ability to achieve righteousness apart from Christ (Ephesians 2:1-10). Any righteousness we could boast in are lost as we cannot boast in self, but only in the good works of Jesus Christ (Galatians 6:11-15). So the true church of Jesus Christ is only capable of performing the good works of Jesus Christ, through faith in Him. We, His church, are members of His church in which Jesus Christ is the head.
Now for the defense of my flawed possible interpretation that Jesus Christ is referring to the church body, versus the literal body of one person. To be sure this is by no means an interpretation I’ve set in stone for myself. As a result I would covet opinions on this interpretation.
I use the following scriptures to back up this interpretation: 1 Corinthians 12:12-28, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, 2 Corinthians 2:3-11. Also the entire Bible teaches of false teachers and prophets and how they should be dealt with. In fact the Bible teaches that the false teacher or immoral brother or any other “member” of the body in open sin should be cast from our mists. Read Exodus and Leviticus for further references to this form of judgment & punishment. This is done for the good of the member (in the case of 1 Corinthians 5) and the good of the body.
If its God will I pray that I will better understand these verses in Matthew 5. It’s funny how the gospels seem to be lauded as the most basic books in the Bible and yet I’m continually challenged by their meanings. The gospels, to me at least, seem to be both the most basic books as well as the most difficult. Matthew 11:25-26
There are only 3 possible interpretations (that I’m aware of) of this teaching. The first is the literal. In other words, Jesus quite literally instructed His disciples to avoid any hint of sin in their lives, at all costs. The second is the non-literal. Jesus was simply trying to make a very dramatic point that sin is really bad. Obviously Jesus wasn’t referring to mutilation of our bodies. The third interpretation is that Jesus was referring to His body. That is the body of Christ, His bride the church.
I would guess most, if not everyone, would disagree with the first literal translation, except a few crazy monks back in the day. I was taught, as I believe most folks have, the 2nd interpretation (or a close version), especially in light of verses 27 & 28. Now I’m not totally convinced the 2nd interpretation is bad, but it doesn’t seem to hold up with solid doctrine.
Regarding man’s useless designs to avoid sin read 1 John 1:8-10. Isn’t the severity of sin more dramatically demonstrated as truly wicked and evil in that Jesus had to die for ours? I would think this would be a better demonstration then a discussion on a non-literal teaching of dismembering oneself. However, due to our myriad of sins and self focus, Jesus did employ several different perspectives and stories to get across His point.
The 1st interpretation abdicates desecration of the temple of God. Yes Jesus’ body was tortured to the point of death, but He didn’t do it to Himself. He allowed this event to happen and it wasn’t to avoid His own sin, but to achieve forgiveness of sins for the world. This wasn’t desecration, but glorification of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, where Jesus was born without sin, we are born into sin. Therefore, if we hold to the 1st interpretation, then all Christians would either have to dismember themselves or be taken up by God prior to birth given Ephesians 1:4-7. Also another result of this line of thinking, both with the 1st & 2nd interpretations, we would have to isolate ourselves from the unbelieving world. In fact we know this is impossible as it’s being implemented and utterly failing in America in nearly every church (a bit more on this in my next posting). Not to mention the Great Commission in Mark 16:14-18, in which Jesus Christ directly teaches against this. Then the Holy Spirit teaches against this in 1 Corinthians 5:9-10, via Paul. So following either the 1st or 2nd interpretations how are we to be the salt of the world or the light on the hill?
Again another issue I have with the 2nd interpretation is that it seems to abdicate works over faith. In other words, if I figuratively pluck out my eye, I can become more pleasing to God. I now have the power to do something to directly effect the way God looks at me and thereby manipulate Him, much as others use suicide attacks or confess sins to a priest, to please God. My problem with this is that God is pleased with Christians, not because of anything any of us could ever do, but because of what Jesus Christ has already done. Though it seems James teaches works over faith, this is a false interpretation of these teachings. Works are a fruit of faith in Jesus Christ. The good works of a Christian have nothing to do with mans’ inherit goodness, or ability to achieve righteousness apart from Christ (Ephesians 2:1-10). Any righteousness we could boast in are lost as we cannot boast in self, but only in the good works of Jesus Christ (Galatians 6:11-15). So the true church of Jesus Christ is only capable of performing the good works of Jesus Christ, through faith in Him. We, His church, are members of His church in which Jesus Christ is the head.
Now for the defense of my flawed possible interpretation that Jesus Christ is referring to the church body, versus the literal body of one person. To be sure this is by no means an interpretation I’ve set in stone for myself. As a result I would covet opinions on this interpretation.
I use the following scriptures to back up this interpretation: 1 Corinthians 12:12-28, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, 2 Corinthians 2:3-11. Also the entire Bible teaches of false teachers and prophets and how they should be dealt with. In fact the Bible teaches that the false teacher or immoral brother or any other “member” of the body in open sin should be cast from our mists. Read Exodus and Leviticus for further references to this form of judgment & punishment. This is done for the good of the member (in the case of 1 Corinthians 5) and the good of the body.
If its God will I pray that I will better understand these verses in Matthew 5. It’s funny how the gospels seem to be lauded as the most basic books in the Bible and yet I’m continually challenged by their meanings. The gospels, to me at least, seem to be both the most basic books as well as the most difficult. Matthew 11:25-26
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)