Leaving the Noise Behind

moving to wordpress

2010-10-26T04:16:00.002-05:00

I have made the move to wordpress. Please check out the blog at ephesians411.wordpress.com
thanks - Jeremy

Having Faith Is Hard

2010-09-13T22:52:00.000-05:00

Having faith is hard. Not necessarily the having faith part (though that can be challenging at times). No, I'm talking about after you have your faith, when you know God and you know who He is. When you know His mercy and His justice, His love and His grace. Because when you know God, you know that there's a reason for scriptures like Psalm 27:14, "Wait for the LORD; be strong and take heart and wait for the LORD." When you have faith, then you know that He will . . . all that's left is to wait for Him to . . .

That's hard. Real hard. Because see, I'm not a patient person. I get scared easily. Sometimes I get hurt by the world. Sometimes the people I love most in this life experience struggles and pain. You see, I have this horrible desire to be in complete control. And when I'm scared, it's because I've just been reminded that I control nothing. And when I hurt, I want to be able to make it stop right then. And above all else, I hate not being able to ensure that the people in my life are always safe, happy and healthy.

You know, I don't know why God tells me to wait for Him. Maybe it's for a different reason each time? But I do know that if I am going to live my life with authenticity, then I have to yield to Him. I can't call Him my King, but refuse to give up my sceptor. I can't tell Him to pierce my ear and not live as His servant.

Funny!

2010-07-22T01:57:00.000-05:00

I saw this on Trey Morgan's blog. Funny and a little scary because it's so true. We may fool each other. But our kids see right through us.

Five Things a Dad Should Do Everyday

2010-07-19T01:46:00.004-05:00

1. HUG your child. Show them with hugs just how much you love them.

2. Tell your child that you LOVE them unconditionally. Explain to them what unconditional love means to you.

3. PRAY with your child. Take time to show them that your relationship with God is the only thing that is more important to you than them or their Mom.

4. PLAY with your child. Spend time with them doing something that they enjoy.

5. Let your child see you LOVE on your wife. Show them what a healthy marriage looks like.

Moms, encourage and support your husband to do these things and be the spiritual example and leader that God calls him to be.

Love, Trust & Obey

2010-07-19T01:22:00.000-05:00

I believe in my heart that most people want to do good. I'll be more specific. I believe with all my heart that most Christians want to love and honor God with their lives. I think I fit in that boat. I know I try. Although I must admit that I often lack the execution part.

Two of the foremost driving motivators in ministry is winning souls to Christ and making a difference in the lives of the Christians that you serve. The first is measurable. The second, hardly at all. Not knowing if you're making a difference can quickly lead to frustration, burn out, callousness and in some cases giving up. Thankfully, God reminded me of this recently. I'm not saying that I am going to stop worrying about whether or not I'm making an impact. But I'm glad that I was reminded that I shouldn't put that at the top of my worry list.

Instead, I'm going to put my energy into LOVING God, TRUSTING God and OBEYING God.

The Kingdom of God

2010-07-09T18:52:00.001-05:00

Ben Witherington is a great evangelical Bible scholar. He offers a good explanation of the Kingdom of God.

Refocus

2010-07-09T13:24:00.000-05:00

Should we define our faithfulness to God in terms of our attendance to worship? That's often how we speak in terms of our faith and especially other peoples' faith - "do they go to church?" Is that the point? When we stand before God, is He going to ask us about our batting average on worship attendance? We see from the scriptures that there is so much more to it than that. Notice these two scriptures.

Matthew 7:21-22

²¹"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ²²Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'

Matthew 25:34-36

³⁴"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

When we place our focus on attending worship service we redefine faith and send a bad message, or the wrong the message. Is that what is truly most important to you? There's other possible criteria. What about how often you pray? What about the depth of your prayers? What about how often you read your Bible? Those questions can also be used as matrices to gauge faithfulness.What if you we gauged ourselves on how often we read the Bible? Where would you be? Because it is blatant, obvious and not-intrusive we have, over the course of time, slanted or moved ourselves towards the understanding that our corporate worship is the center piece of our faith. It's extremely important - vital even. But it's not the center piece. Some groups have placed other things at the center, like discipleship.

But the only true center piece is Jesus Christ. He's both the cause and affect. He's the reason for our faith and what we get because of our faith. Because of His choice, we have a choice. And because of our choice we get to have Him stand up for us in front of God, because we can't possibly stand alone. Perhaps we need to change the question we ask from "Is he faithfully attending worship," to "Is he faithful living for Jesus?" The answer to that question will include worship and Bible study and prayer and discipleship and giving and . . .

A Wake-Up Call?

2010-07-07T23:14:00.001-05:00

We've sent men to the moon. We have people living in space. We've got nuclear bombs. But we can't stop an oil spill? All politics aside, there's a huge lesson for us there.

Our society promotes a narsissistic and cavalier attitude that essentially mitigates any need for God in our lives. Simply put, we think we have all the answers, can do all things and completely control our world. That is simply not true. And the fact that we're now on DAY 80 of the worst ecological disaster ever, clearly demonstrates that we're at the mercy of something that is infinite where we are finite.

I wonder if God is trying to get our attention? Perhaps not. But, just maybe some of us will start to understand that even though we are created with the ability to produce greatness, we weren't created to live without a need for our Creator.

The Pecking Order of Baptism

2010-07-06T15:49:00.001-05:00

I've been thinking lately about the place of baptism in our salvation. In Romans chapter 6, Paul illustrates why it is essential for salvation; and not just an after-the-fact demonstration of our obedience. The theology in that chapter is thick, and it's not really my point. I've never once had a second thought about the necessity of baptism, nor do I know. Instead, I think at some point some may have mistakenly placed baptism as the goal, intead of a part of the process of reaching the goal.

This was really highlighted for me during my time at Bible camp a few weeks ago. It seems like there is an artificial pressure that we put on ourselves to get as many kids converted as possible during that week. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Actually, I think there would be a lot more Christians walking around if we lived our lives with that self-afflicted pressure all year. But partly because of that pressure I think we have mistakenly placed baptism as the end goal. Baptism isn't the end goal. Faithful followers of Christ is the end goal. Baptism is part of the process that gets to the end goal.

Sometimes I think we get in such a rush to get someone wet, that in the end, all we do is get someone wet. There is no true repentence, there is no true understanding of following Christ, there is no conversion. Think about all the conversion stories in Acts. Luke never once talks about the preaching or teaching being about baptism. It's always about sin, responsibility, Jesus' death and other similar topics. But in the end of the narrative, the person always ends up being baptized. Not because that was preached to them, but because that's the answer to the question, "what do I do now," or something like it.

This problem is especially prevalent with our kids. We push for them to get baptized. Maybe we'd be better off to push for them to be followers of Christ?

Valleys that are too Deep and too Wide

2010-07-03T15:10:00.007-05:00

You've most likely had some tough struggles in your faith. If you have kids, they have most likely have had some tough struggles in their faith. If they haven't, it's because they are still young - they will. Challenges and struggles are an inevitable part of living a Christian life. James said to be joyful when (not if) you face trials (Jas 1:2). So, we shouldn't be terribly alarmed when tough times show up. We just have to be ready for them and help each other through them.

But lately, I have seen a lot of extended and deepened tough times. In other words, the valleys were deeper and wider than normal. They don't seem to be the ones that James was talking about. Why is that? It seems to be most common with teens and young(er) adults. But older folks are definitely not immune. I wonder why that is? I see people of all ages that are going through the motions of being a Christian; with their hearts hardened and flames long since extinguished. It saddens me to see people stop worshipping their Creator and fellowshipping with their Christian family. It concerns me to see Christians come to worship out of a false sense of obligation and duty; instead of desiring to come into the presence of the God that words can't describe. It frustrates me to see disrespectful attitudes and behaviors during our times together.

But let's stop there for a moment. I have got to be honest with myself. We have got to be honest with ourselves. And we must hold ourselves accountable for whatever circumstances and situation exists. See, it's easy to throw rocks at people who seem to be less holy than we are. But we have got to start asking honest tough questions - even though the answers that may come out are scary and hurtful. So let's be honest when we answer the question: WHY? Why are the valley's deeper and wider than they ought to be. For what it's worth, here's my answer: the people in the valley were never up on the mountain in the first place.

If we're all going to have our own personal valleys, isn't it possible that those people whose valley is deeper didn't actually fall further than anyone else, they just started off lower up the mountain (if they were ever on the mountain at all)? I'll get straight to my point. If the top of the mountain is a powerful, engaging Relationship with God through Jesus Christ, then many people were never up there. Here's why. For far too long (probably three generations) we have not been teaching people to passionately love God and desparately fight to follow Jesus Christ. Instead, in my estimation we have spent our time teaching the following three things:

1. Faithful religion means you come to every scheduled worship 'service' and bible study. If the Elders say that we're going to meet then you should be there.

2. Follow Church doctrine. Because if you don't then you'll be called names. Let's be honest with ourselves. Has the Church doctrine always been Bible doctrine? Before you say yes, can you name a scripture for everything you have been held accountable for or condmened others on?

3. Live a good, moral life.

When I think back to my childhood and teenage years, and when I look at titles of old sermons, I see that everything fits into one of these three categories. So when I look around now and see folks who have deserted their faith or are not living out Christ-like faith, I have to point a few fingers back at myself. Because here's the bottom line, people are doing what they have been taught to do. And they are doing it for as long as they can. But here's the problem with that bottom line: if those three teachings define your faith, then your faith is built on a weak foundation that will eventually crumble.

The only foundation that will never crumble is Jesus Christ. If we preach and teach Jesus Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2), then we'll give our kids, our community and ourselves a foundation that will stand up to the trials that James said will come.

Using the Old Testment to Prove New Testament Doctrine

2010-06-27T13:23:00.000-05:00

What authority does the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible hold over Christians? That question has been asked and answered before, right. I mean Jesus dealt with that. He fulfilled the Old Law. He said so himself in Matthew 5:17. That's why we don't sacrifice animals anymore; or rely on priests to be a go-between. Jesus made serves us in both those capacities. He was the perfect sacrifice for our sins. No more sacrifices are required. And no more trips to the Temple.

There's a reason I ask and answer this question. I'm wondering if Christians should use the Old Testament to prove or to serve as evidence for doctrinal positions. I've done this many times. But I am really beginning to rethink my thinking on this one. If the Old Law is not binding any longer - then the Old Testament shouldn't be binding any longer either. But we really have a double standard on that. Well, I've had a double standard on that.

Here's an example. When it comes to worship I have traditionally been, well, traditional. I don't really like that word so I'll say that I tend to err on the side of caution. So many times when I have felt uncomfortable about an issue and wasn't really able to address it in the New Testament text, I would turn over to Leviticus 10 and throw Nadab and Abihu at it. "See, when it comes to worship we should only do exactly what God says to do." I am going to guess that I'm not the only person to do that.

So, is that right? Is that okay? Does that fall in line with the way God wants us to use the Old Testament text? Is that why God was sure to include that story? What do you think? I'll try to answer some of those questions in the next post.

Bible Camp

2010-06-27T12:55:00.000-05:00

It's been a while since my last post. I've been away from my computer the past week. I took my Bible, my Greek Grammar and enough clothes to get through the week and spent an absolutely wonderful five days at Bible Camp. I love going to camp! It's a great time to leave every distraction at home and just go focus on God and my relationship with Him.

I didn't watch or keep up with the Braves. I didn't watch any movies. I didn't check Fox News. I didn't blog or read any blogs. And I survived just fine. In fact, I never really missed it. It was just my Bible and my Christian family. I wonder if Bible Camp isn't close to what the first century Christians experienced. If you've been to a Bible Camp, then you know what i'm talking about. If you haven't, chances are, your congregation is connected to one. Give it a try. You'll be a blessing and will be blessed. I promise.

Who's My Brother?

2010-06-18T00:11:00.003-05:00

Fellowship is a tough subject. The best treatment I have ever come across on the issue was F. Legard Smith's Who Is My Brother? If you have never read it, I highly recommend you pick it up.

It seems that we have come to a crossroads, or maybe a fork in the road. Many folks are widening their door of fellowship and including anyone and everyone who calls themselves a Christian - whether or not they are in fact a New Testament Christian. While others are so judgmental and condemning that they refuse to recognize their brothers and sisters in Christ simply because they disagree with them on one or two issues. Both are wrong, because neither demonstrate the LOVE or ACCOUNTABILITY that Jesus taught us.

This brings up the question, what does it mean to fellowship? Is it simply about worship? Or does it extend past worship? What would people in my community think if they saw me eating lunch with the preacher at the Baptist church that is less than a mile from our building? The fact is, we are all over the spectrum when it comes to fellowship. I'm going to spend a little time studying Jesus' attitudes and responses to this issue and I hope to share some of what I find. But in the mean time, I'll leave it with this thought.

We have to avoid the extremes. We are never going to agree with everyone on every issue of doctrine - because we don't have a perfect understanding of doctrine. But we can understand issues of salvation. And to accept another person as Christian when they are not is wrong. That puts their soul in jeopardy. And that's my responsibility to reach out to that person and teach them - not reach out to them and embrace them as a brother in Christ. Likewise, shame on the person who unscripturally withholds fellowship from another Christian. That is not a Christ-like behavior.

Brothers and Sisters in Christ are Brothers and Sisters in Christ. Jesus' blood has created a family bond that I have no right to break. Let's not forget whose we are.

When You Don't Like How Things are Going

2010-06-16T11:33:00.000-05:00

Terry Rush posted this on his blog yesterday. I'm really appreciate his thoughts.

While all can use this article, I specifically write to the very young leaders. Many things will take place in the church that you won't like. What shall you do? Move? Fight? Quit? I think not. I don't know how I knew to do it, but I saw at an early age the need to keep my mouth shut and learn. I studied what wasn't working for I knew the day would come when things changed. I lived in pain on several occasions; even then realizing I was in an important class studying church leadership from the trenches. Anybody can work with a church when things are going great guns. What God seems to look for are men and women who will take the icon of the cross seriously...things won't go our way. Don't be discouraged when the seas are rough. Rather learn to walk on them. Choose to capitalize on their educational value. You are designed for effective leadership. Sometimes your best days will feel like your worst. Fret not. He still oversees His work.

There are times when the waves feel like they are too big to swim in. And sometimes the headaches and stress just doesn't seem worth it. When those feelings come along, the easiest thing to do is give up and quit. I have to admit, there are times when those feelings are right. But having the wisdom to recognize the right thing to do does not come from within - even if we have great experiences or a wealth of knowledge. It comes from the leading of the Holy Spirit. It comes from the source above.

One thing I often need to be reminded of is that God alone knows everything and that it's His plan and purpose that ultimately counts. God has big plans for us, for each of us. The question then is, will I have the humility and courage to submit to His will for my life and faithfully seek His purpose and His plans?

The Inspired Proof-Texter

2010-06-11T12:43:00.000-05:00

I had intended to follow up a previous post (The Bible Is Not a Jigsaw Puzzle) with a few more thoughts on proof-texting. Here's those thoughts.

Today, people generally have three different responses to proof-texting. First, many have no idea what it is, nor do they particularly care to know. Second, others seem to think that since all of God's Word is inspired and infallible, any statement therein can be used as a statement of fact regardless of the context. The third group seems to be disagree with the practice on two principles. Well, I'll say I disagree with it for two reasons (I think some folks may agree with me). Here's the first reason, when proof-texting is done to make a point, it is usually done out of ignorance or lack of understanding of the scripture. Second, it is done for the purpose of condemning. Neither of those are good ideas to me.

That having been said, there's some biblical evidence that maybe proof-texting isn't bad or wrong. It's tough being intellectually honest with the Bible. Because sometimes, that forces you to admit that you don't have nearly the insight that you thought you may have had. This might be one of those spots. Take a break from your reading and grab your Bible and read Matthew's birth narrative (1:18-2:2).

Matthew refers to five prophecies in the text to help make his case for Jesus' divine birth. Here they are listed individually with the corresponding Old Testament scripture that Matthew is citing.

Matt 1:22-23

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel"

Isa 7:14-16

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.

Matt 2:5-6

They told him (Herod), "In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet: And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.

Micah 5:1-4

Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the judge of Israel on the cheek. But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has given birth; then the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel. And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God.

Matt 2:14-15

And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son.

Hosea 11:1

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols.

Matt 2:17-18
Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: "A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more."
Jer 31:15
Thus says the LORD: "A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more."

Matt 2:23
And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: "He shall be called a Nazarene."
Isa 11:1
There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.

Notice how in four out of the five citations Matthew uses the word "fulfill." Here's what's interesting about all of this - those four citations are not literally accruate. That means that Matthew took the verses out of context and used them to make his point about Jesus. Here's what I mean. Isaiah 7 is not talking about Jesus. The context is that Israel (in particular Jerusalem) is under seige by Syria and Judah. What Isaiah is prophesying is that there is a young woman who will have a child and that child will be eating curds and honey by the time he is old enough to choose between right and wrong. What does that mean? Well, since the city was under seige, there were no supplies coming in - so there was no curds and honey being brought in to be eaten. But by the time he's a few years old the seige will be over. The translation of the word "virgin" is actually not original to the Hebrew. It was added by the LXX translators. The original word literally means "young woman." So it seems that Matthew had a copy of the LXX in front of him and was cutting and pasting a verse to make his point.

With the exception of Matthew 2:5-6, the others have similar issues. They are completely taken out of context. And like I mentioned before, the four that are taken out of context are the ones that Matthew uses the word fulfilled. It seems like he may have known what he was doing so added the word fulfilled to give it more authority.

What exactly was Matthew doing here? Is this right? Did he do it on purpose? If it's okay for Matthew to do this, is it okay for me or us? These are just a few of the questions that I have. Here's my thoughts on it. I think Matthew was using typology. I don't think he was writing ignorantly or carelessly. I think he purposefully used a method of applying and interpreting the scriptures. Is it valuable for today? That is, is that method of interpreting valuable for today? Well, many of the early Church fathers were really into typology because they felt the need to have an explanation for everything in the Bible. They took 2 Timothy 3:16 way too literally and used to make interpretations that were never intended to be made.

Think about it this way: what practical significance or relevance can the Christian today gain from the old Law listed in Leviticus and Numbers? There are scriptures that tell the Israelites what to do if someone's cow comes onto your land and gets hurt. What's the application for today? Well, there's really not a specific literal application. We can derive some themes about how to live in community with one another and treat other people. But there's not much else there. But with typology we can put stuff there to make it seem more practical and relevant. That's pretty much what Matthew did.

Is it right for us? No, I don't think it is. The Bible was not written to us, it was written for us. The Bible is not an encyclopedia or dictionary meant just to be used for reference. It was never written with verses or chapters. That tells me that we were meant to read the whole thing. We should just take one verse out of hundreds from a letter that Paul wrote and use it to make our point. We have to ask the questions: is this was Paul was talking about? What issues was he addressing? Etc.

So why did Matthew do it? Well, I think it comes back to inspiration. He was being guided by the Holy Spirit to create the document in just the way that God wanted.

Having Fun in "Church"?

2010-06-10T15:02:00.002-05:00

I came across this video on Tim Spivy's blog. I wonder if this applies to religion/church/faith, etc. I know many people would consider it heretical to purposefully include fun in religion (and by religion I mean "church"). But assuming this phenomenon presented in the picture is accurate, why would we not use it in the most important mission ever? If we're going fishing for people (Mark 1:17), wouldn't we want use the best "bait" we can find? Does God prefer what type of "bait" we use?

Is it wrong to enjoy "church," definitely not. Is it right to make entertainment the sole purpose of "church," definitely not. What does God say about including fun and entertainment in "church" to provide greater initial attraction, greater stimulation and a more impactful experience? That's something to study and think about.

Tim Spivy has some worthwhile comments. "Personally, I find the presence of laughter to be a sign of congregational health and its absence stunning and sad. While I don't think church should be a stand-up routine, I have to think that enjoying God's people and God's presence is a good thing. While they shouldn't be cornerstones of the church, laughter and fun certainly shouldn't be out of place in the church. In fact, they should be symptomatic of the joy we have living out the abundant life together."

An Recent Interview with Stephen Hawking

2010-06-10T14:39:00.005-05:00

What a despondent commentary on the attitudes of the Created. Hawking said that he wants to know why the universe exists, why there is something instead of nothing. It's terribly disappointing that he chooses not to believe in the source that can supply the answer to his question.

By the way, Diane Sawyer is annoying at best and really needs to go away.

Let all things be done decently and in order - ahhhhh!

2010-06-09T11:25:00.001-05:00

Recently I've been considering our worship time together. It "seems" like too many of us are just going through the motions. Well actually, that's probably painting the picture to look a little nicer than it probably is. What I should say, while most of us are going through the motions, some are not motioning at all. A couple of Sunday's ago while the congregation was standing and singing together, I noticed a man was sitting down and reading the bulletin. On a bench behind him, a parent was sitting down singing while her two teenage kids sent text-messages. When did we get to the point where we come together to worship our Creator to now where it seems like we come to the building to check off our religious requirements sheet for the week? I think a lot of this is because hearts are hard and no longer living a life of love as a follower of Jesus. Where instead, those hearts that once flamed brightly are relegated to the life of a religious drone.

All that aside, I think the Church leaders bear some responsibility for this. Take for instance our worship service. It is completely scripted, planned and even timed. We do the exact same thing every week in the exact same order. We sing the same number of songs in the same order and we take the Communion at the same point - every week, week after week. All with the effort of getting through it all so that we can get to the sermon, so the preacher can get done quicker, so we can be done right at one hour. And we do it all in the name of "letting all things be done decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14:40). It kind of makes we want to go into a closed room and yell - "that's not what Paul was talking about!!!"

I came across this blog from Timothy Archer. Take a look at it.

"C.S. Lewis was no fan of change within worship services. He wrote, “Every service is a structure of acts and words through which we receive a sacrament, or repent, or supplicate, or adore. And it enables us to do these things best—if you like it, it ‘works’ best—when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it.…But every novelty prevents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself…” He goes on to quote an unnamed source that said, “I wish they’d remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep; not Try experiments on my rats, or even Teach my performing dogs new tricks.” (The Joyful Christian, pp. 80-81)

Personally, though I highly esteem Lewis as a thinker and a writer, I don’t agree with his views on familiarity in worship. I find that familiarity often breeds unthinking repetition. It becomes too easy to “go through the motions,” without being aware of what we’re doing or why. We say things without even thinking what they mean. We sing without being aware of who we’re singing to (is it a song of encouragement to my brothers or a song of worship to God?). We instinctively reach for our checkbook while sipping the homogenized grape juice from the plastic cup.

I think that we need change at times if only to make us aware of what we’re doing. My high school choir director used to say, “A rut is just a grave with both ends knocked out.” We need to be conscious of the forms of what we’re doing and the meanings behind those forms. What do you find to be true? Is change a distraction or a call to awareness? Is routine an aid to worship or a hindrance to our worshiping with our minds as well as our actions?"

Kind of makes you think.

The Bible is not a Jigsaw Puzzle

2010-06-09T10:29:00.001-05:00

This is a great read from Frank Viola. It's a little long, but well worth a few minutes of your time. You're brain will thank you for it ;-)

"Why is it that we Christians can divide up into thousands of different sects and all claim that we are following the Word of God? How is it that many of us can blithely embrace church practices and theological beliefs that are not rooted in Scriptural principle, yet read them back into the New Testament? I submit that the problem is with our approach to the New Testament. The approach most commonly used among modern Christians when studying the Bible is called "proof texting." The origin of proof texting goes back to the late 1590s. A group of men called Protestant Scholastics took the teachings of the Reformers and systematized them according to the rules of Aristotelian logic.

The Protestant Scholastics held that not only is the Scripture the Word of God, but every part of it is the Word of God in and of itself—irrespective of context. This set the stage for the idea that if we lift a verse out of the Bible, it is true in its own right and can be used to prove a doctrine or a practice. When John Nelson Darby emerged in the mid 1800s, he built a theology based on this approach. Darby raised proof texting to an art form. In fact, it was Darby who gave fundamentalist and evangelical Christians a good deal of their presently accepted teachings. All of them are built on the proof texting method. Proof texting, then, became the way that we modern Christians approach the Bible. It is taught in every Protestant Bible school and seminary on earth.

As a result, we Christians rarely, if ever, get to see the NT as a whole. Rather, we are served up a dish of fragmented thoughts that are drawn together by means of fallen human logic. The fruit of this approach is that we have strayed far afield from the practice of the NT church. Yet we still believe we are being Biblical. Allow me to illustrate the problem with a fictitious story.

Meet Marvin Snurdly
Marvin Snurdly is a world renowned marital counselor. In his 20-year career as a marriage therapist, Marvin has counseled thousands of troubled marriages. He has an Internet presence. Each day hundreds of couples write letters to Marvin about their marital sob stories. The letters come from all over the globe. And Marvin answers them all. A hundred years pass, and Marvin Snurdly is resting peacefully in his grave. He has a great, great grandson named Fielding Melish. Fielding decides to recover the lost letters of his great, great grandfather, Marvin Snurdly. But Fielding can only find 13 of Marvin’s letters. Out of the thousands of letters that Marvin wrote in his lifetime, only 13 have survived! Nine of them were written to couples in marital crisis. Four of them were written to individual spouses.

These letters were all written within a 20-year time frame: From 1980 to 2000. Fielding Melish plans to compile these letters into a volume. But there is something interesting about the way Marvin wrote his letters that makes Fielding’s task somewhat difficult. First, Marvin had an annoying habit of never dating his letters. No days, months, or years appear on any of the 13 letters. Second, the letters only portray half the conversation. The initial letters written to Marvin that provoked his responses no longer exist. Consequently, the only way to understand the backdrop of one of Marvin’s letters is by reconstructing the marital situation from Marvin’s response. Each letter was written at a different time, to people in a different culture, dealing with a different problem. For example, in 1985, Marvin wrote a letter to Paul and Sally from Virginia, USA who were experiencing sexual problems early in their marriage. In 1990, Marvin wrote a letter to Jethro and Matilda from Australia who were having problems with their children. In 1995, Marvin wrote a letter to a wife from Mexico who was experiencing a mid-life crisis.

Take note: 20 years—13 letters—all written to different people at different times in different cultures—all experiencing different problems. It is Fielding Melish’s desire to put these 13 letters in chronological order. But without the dates, he cannot do this. So Fielding puts them in the order of descending length. That is, he takes the longest letter that Marvin wrote and puts it first. He puts Marvin’s second longest letter after that. He takes the third longest and puts it third. The compilation ends with the shortest letter that Marvin penned. 13 letters are arranged, not chronologically, but by their length. The volume hits the presses and becomes an overnight best seller. People are buying it by the truck loads. 100 years pass and The Collected Works of Marvin Snurdly compiled by Fielding Melish stands the test of time. The work is still very popular. Another 100 years pass, and this volume is being used copiously throughout the Western World. (Marvin has been resting in his grave for 300 years now.) The book is translated into dozens of languages. Marriage counselors are quoting it left and right. Universities are employing it in their sociology classes. It is so widely used that someone gets a bright idea on how to make the volume easier to quote and handle. What is that bright idea? It is to divide Marvin’s letters into chapters and numbered sentences (we call them verses). So chapters and verses are born in the Collected Works of Marvin Snurdly. But by adding chapter-and-verse to these once living letters, something changes that goes unnoticed. The letters lose their personal touch. Instead, they take on the texture of a manual. Different sociologists begin writing books about marriage and the family. Their main source? The Collected Works of Marvin Snurdly. Pick up any book in the 24th century on the subject of marriage, and you will find the author quoting chapters and verses from Marvin’s letters.

It usually looks like this: In making a particular point, an author will quote a verse from Marvin’s letter written to Paul and Sally. The author will then lift another verse from the letter written to Jethro and Matilda. He will extract another verse from another letter. Then he will sew these three verses together upon which he will build his particular marital philosophy. Virtually every sociologist and marital therapist that authors a book on marriage does the same thing. Yet the irony is here. Each of these authors constantly contradicts the others, even though they are all using the same source!

But that is not all. Not only have Marvin’s letters been turned into cold prose when they were originally living, breathing epistles to real people in real places. But they have devolved into a weapon in the hands of agenda-driven men. Not a few authors on marriage begin employing isolated proof texts from Marvin’s work to hammer away at those who disagree with their marital philosophy. How can they do this? How is this being done? How are all of these sociologists contradicting each other when they are using the exact same source!? It is because the letters have been lifted out of their historical context. Each letter has been plucked from its chronological sequence and taken out of its real life setting. Put another way, the letters of Marvin Snurdly have been transformed into a series of isolated, disjointed, fragmented sentences—free for anyone to lift one sentence from one letter, another sentence from another letter, paste them together to create the marital philosophy of their choice.

An amazing story is it not? Well here is the punch line. Whether you realize it or not, I have just described your NT! Your NT is made up mostly of Paul's letters. Paul of Tarsus wrote two thirds of it. He penned 13 letters in a 20-year time span. Nine letters were written to churches in different cultures, at different times, experiencing different problems. Four letters were written to individual Christians. The individuals who received those letters were also dealing with different issues at different times.

Take note: 20 years—13 letters—all written to different churches at different times in different cultures—all experiencing different problems. In the early second century, someone took the letters of Paul and compiled them into a volume. The technical term for this volume is "canon." Scholars refer to this compiled volume as "the Pauline canon." It is essentially your NT with a few letters added afterwards, the four Gospels and Acts placed at the front, and Revelation tacked on the end. At the time, no one knew when Paul's letters were written. Even if they did, it would not have mattered. There was no precedent for alphabetical or chronological ordering. The first-century Greco-Roman world ordered its literature according to decreasing length.

Look at how your NT is arranged. What do you find? Paul's longest letter appears first. It is Romans. 1 Corinthians is the second longest letter, hence the reason why it follows Romans. 2 Corinthians is the third longest letter. Your NT follows this pattern until you come to that tiny little book called Philemon. Here is the present order as it appears in your NT. The books are arranged according to descending length:

Romans

1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon

What, then, is the proper chronological order of these letters? According to the best available scholarship, here is the order in which they were written:

Galatians

1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Romans
Colossians
Philemon
Ephesians
Philippians
1 Timothy
Titus
2 Timothy

The Addition of Chapters and Verses

In the year 1227, a professor at the University of Paris named Stephen Langton added chapters to all the books of the NT. Then in 1551, a printer named Robert Stephanus numbered the sentences in all of the books of the NT.

According to Stephanus' son, the verse divisions that his father created do not do service to the sense of the text. Stephanus did not use any consistent method. While riding on horseback from Paris to Lyons, he versified the entire NT within Langton's chapter divisions. So verses were born in the pages of holy writ in the year 1551. And since that time God's people have approached the NT with scissors and glue, cutting-and-pasting isolated, disjointed sentences from different letters, lifting them out of their real-life setting and lashing them together to build floatable doctrines. Then calling it "the Word of God."

This half-baked approach still lives in our seminaries, Bible colleges, churches, Bible studies, and (tragically) our house churches today. Most Christians are completely out of touch with the social and historical events that lay behind each of the NT letters. Instead, they have turned the NT into a manual that can be wielded to prove any point. Chopping the Bible up into fragments makes this relatively easy to pull off.

How We Approach the Bible
We Christians have been taught to approach the Bible in one of seven ways. See how many you can tick off with a pencil that apply to you:

You look for verses that inspire you. Upon finding such verses, you either highlight, memorize, meditate upon, or put them on your refrigerator door.
You look for verses that tell you what God has promised so that you can confess it in faith and thereby obligate the Lord to do what you want. (If you are part of the "name-it-claim-it," "blab-it-grab-it" movement, you are masterful at doing this.)
You look for verses that tell you what God commands you to do.
You look for verses that you can quote to scare the devil out of his wits or resist him in the hour of temptation.
You look for verses that will prove your particular doctrine so that you can slice-and-dice your theological sparring partner into Biblical ribbons. (Because of the proof-texting method, a vast wasteland of Christianity behaves as if the mere citation of some random, de-contextualized verse of Scripture ends all discussion on virtually all subjects.)
You look for verses in the Bible to control and/or correct others.
If you are a preacher, you look for verses that "preach" well for next Sunday morning's sermon. (This is an on-going addiction for preachers. It is so ingrained that many of them are incapable of reading their Bibles in any way other than to hunt for sermon material.)

Now look at this list again. Did you find yourself there? Notice how each of these approaches is highly individualistic. All of them put you, the individual Christian, at the center. Each approach ignores the fact that most of the NT was written to corporate bodies of people (churches), not to individuals. But that is not all. Each of these approaches is built on isolated proof-texting. They treat the NT like a manual and blind us to its real message. It is no wonder that we can approvingly nod our heads at paid pastors, the Sunday morning order of worship, sermons, church buildings, religious costumes, choirs, worship teams, seminaries, and a passive priesthood—all without wincing.

We have been taught to approach the Bible like a jigsaw puzzle. For most of us, we have never been told the entire story that lies behind the letters that Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude wrote. We have been taught chapters and verses, not the historical context.

Needed: A New Approach to the New Testament

What is needed is a brand new approach to the New Testament. An approach not based in the New Testament letters as they are arranged in our Bible. But an approach that is based in "the story" . . . which blends together Acts and the Epistles in chronological order. If every Christian, pastors and Bible teachers included, would obtain a panoramic view of the first-century church in its chronological and socio-historical setting, it would revolutionize the Christian landscape today. The following are four specific ways in which this revolution could take place in your own life.

First, understanding the story of the NT church will give you a whole new understanding of each NT letter—an understanding that is rich, accurate, and exciting. You will be ushered into the living, breathing atmosphere of the first century. You will taste what went on in the writers’ hearts when they penned their letters. The circumstances they addressed will be made plain. The people to whom they wrote will come to life. No longer will you see the Epistles as sterile, complicated reads. Instead, they will turn into living, breathing voices that are part of a living, breathing story. The result? You will grasp the NT like never before! NT scholar F.F. Bruce once made the statement that reading the letters of Paul is like hearing one side of a telephone conversation. This book reconstructs “the other side.”

Second, understanding the story will help you see “the big picture” that undergirds the events that followed the birth of the church and its subsequent growth. This “big picture” has at its center an unbroken pattern of God’s working. And this pattern reflects God’s ultimate goal—which is to have a community on this earth that expresses His nature in a visible way. This theme of a God-ordained community constitutes a unifying thread that runs throughout the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Therefore, reading this book will not only help you to better understand your NT, it will also give you a fresh look at God’s eternal purpose…that which is closest to His heart.

Third, understanding the story of the NT church will supply you with the proper historical context which will enable you to accurately apply Scripture to your own life. Christians routinely take verses out of context and misapply them to their daily living. Seeing the Scripture in its proper historical context will safeguard you from making this all-too common mistake.

Fourth, understanding the story will forever deliver you from the “cut-and-paste” approach to Bible study that dominates evangelical thinking today. What is the “cut-and-paste” approach to Bible study? It is the common practice of coming to the NT with scissors and glue, clipping and then pasting disjointed sentences (verses) together from Books that were written decades apart.

This “cut-and-paste” approach has spawned all sorts of spiritual hazards. One of them being the popular practice of lashing verses together to build floatable doctrines. Another is that of “proof-texting” to win theological arguments. (A vast majority of Western Christianity behaves as if the mere citation of some random and de-contexualized verse ends all discussion on virtually all subjects.) The Medievals called this “cut-and-paste” method “a string-of-pearls.” You take one text, find some remote metaphorical connection with another text, and voilá, an ironclad doctrine is born! But this is a pathetic approach to understanding the Bible. While it is great for reading one’s own biases into the text, it is horrible for understanding the intent of the biblical authors. It has been rightly said that a person can prove anything by taking Bible verses out of context. Let me demonstrate how one can “biblically” prove that it is God’s will for believers to commit suicide. All you have to do is lift two verses out of their historical setting and paste them together:

“And he [Judas]…went and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5). “Then said Jesus…‘Go, and do thou likewise’ ” (Luke 10:37b).

While this is an outrageous example of the “cut-and-paste” approach, it makes a profound point. Without understanding the historical context of the NT, Christians have managed to build doctrines and invent practices that have fragmented the Body of Christ into thousands of denominations. Understanding the sequence of each NT Book and the socio-historical setting that undergirds them is one remedy for this problem.

I have stated four reasons why rediscovering the NT story is a worthwhile endeavor. But there is one more reason. There is a very good chance that it will revolutionize your Christian life and your relationship with your Lord!

This article has been excerpted from Frank Viola's book Pagan Christianity: The Origins of Our Modern Church Practices (www.ptmin.org/pagan.htm) and The Untold Story of the New Testament Church (www.ptmin.org/untold.htm)

One More Thought on 2 Peter

2010-05-28T00:33:00.001-05:00

There is one more idea that I wanted to share in the last post, but didn't because I thought it might be a little too long. Here's what I was trying to think through. So let's say that, based on the evidence, I come to a conclusion for myself that the Apostle Peter didn't write 2 Peter. But for reasons listed in the last post, I'm okay with that and my faith is not impacted at all. There is still one more question that I have had trouble dealing with.

On multiple occassions in the text, the author explicity passes himself off as Peter; either directly in the first verse or through inference by talking about being up on the mountain with Jesus, James and John for the tranfiguration. This is a problem for me, if for no other reason than the blatant dishonesty. This would be akin to a student plagairizing material. It just not consistent for God to allow any form of dishonesty to be presented in His Bible.

We're really fishing in the weeds now. I mean, all the evidence points in one direction. While on the other hand, that direction is entirely inconsistent with the nature of God. Well, here's my thought. (Keep in my this is still in the thought phase and I haven't done any research on it at all). I wonder if this book hasn't been created from multiple sources? For example, if someone got their hands on fragments of something Peter wrote, that would explain the direct references like the one to the transfiguration. Likewise, some of the other material may be sourced in much the same way as the Gospels - second or third hand rememberances of things Peter taught and said. I know, this is thin. But, for now, that's the best I've got.

What about you? Am I a heretic for even considering that Peter didn't write the letter? Has this raised questions for you that are uncomfortable? Do you completely agree and think I must be the smartest guy in the world? I'd be interested in hearing opinions.

Back to the Issues of Authorship and Inspiration of 2 Peter

2010-05-27T10:40:00.000-05:00

If you’re like me, you would rather try to ignore any evidence that might possibly damage any of the traditions about the Bible – authorship being one of those. The book has 2 Peter has the title for a reason, because Peter wrote it. Honestly, that’s how I’d like to keep it. But there’s another side to the story. I decided a long time ago to place my faith in God and trust Him with my life – with my soul. For me, part of that faith includes placing my trust in the Bible as His inspired Word, the message that He has chosen to leave to me and my family about how to make it through our journey to see Him. If I choose to ignore this “negative” evidence, then I am really demonstrating a lack of faith in God’s Word to stand up against a few skeptical thoughts. His Word is much more powerful than that. If it has the power of God for salvation (Rom 1:16) and if it can save my soul once it’s been implanted in my heart (Jas 1:21), then certainly it can handle my questions.

So, let’s just say for the sake of discussion that there is validity to these arguments; and that 2 Peter was probably not written by the Apostle Peter and that it was written at the end of the first century or beginning of the second. Does that influence your feelings about the text? Should it influence your feelings? Does it mean that the text isn’t inspired? Was there a mistake somewhere along the way and someone circumvented God’s will and inserted this letter in when it shouldn’t have been? These are all legitimate questions.

Like I said, I would rather it have been written by Peter. But if it wasn’t, I’m not going to lose any sleep. Somehow the book still made it into the Bible. What we have to remember about the formation of the Bible is that there was never a council or meeting or any group that formally decided what books were in and what books were out. Over the course of hundreds of years this book could have been taken out by people. But for some reason it was left in. It wasn’t because they were ignorant to the issues that we are now aware of. We have records of the Church theologian Origen expressing his doubts that Peter was the author in the 3rd century, and yet the book remained in the canon.

Let’s take a moment to clear up a common misconception. Many people wrongly think that the only inspired people in the first century were the ones who ended up with a letter/book in the New Testament. I don’t think that’s correct. There are clear Biblical statements that there were prophets in the Church in the first century. In fact, it’s my opinion that each Church had at least one. That’s how the Christians received the will of God until it was available in written form. I find it terribly difficult to believe that none of these men who were inspired wrote down some of the oracles they had received from God; or that no one went home after being at the assembly and hearing their prophet speak went home and took some notes on what he was told that day.

There is also real good evidence that suggests that inspiration carried on after the last Apostle had died. If the gift of prophecy was to communicate the Word of God then why would God take that away before everyone had an opportunity to know what His will was? In other words, wouldn’t it make sense that God would keep prophets around until there were was a supply of all the books of the Bible? That probably didn’t happen until later in the 2nd century.

Having said all this, just because 2 Peter may not have been written by Peter, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t written by an inspired author. I believe that it was written by an inspired author and that’s why God has ensured that worthwhile copies of it remained. There are other letters that I would refer to have copies of (like Paul’s other letters to the Corinthians). But God see to it that those be preserved.

In the end this all comes down to each person’s faith or belief. We’re dealing with texts and evidence that is sourced about 2000 years ago. There is little, if any, information we can prove with certainty. So which ever conclusions you accept, it will be based on faith. Personally, I think the evidence strongly points to the conclusion that Peter did not write this letter. I could take that conclusion and allow it to wreck my faith in God’s Word. That would be an act of faith or belief. Because there is no substantial evidence that the letter wasn’t written by an inspired author. Or, I can choose to remain in my belief that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God; and that since God is ultimately the author of it all, it really makes little difference to me which man’s hand He used to write it.

This Is Too Funny!

2010-05-26T22:30:00.001-05:00

Authorship, Inspiration and other Challenges with 2 Peter

2010-05-26T13:23:00.000-05:00

I want to start by saying that I would be extremely cautious about sharing this information in a Bible class setting. We have to be on guard for each other spiritually. And sometimes there are issues in the Bible that we don't have clear answers for and really don’t have to address. This information fits into that category. Anytime we challenge long-held traditions about the Bible we have to be careful; because, even if it is accurate, it could be damaging to peoples’ faith. Some of this information might fit into that category.

There is some strong internal evidence that suggests that the Apostle Peter did not write 2nd Peter and that it was written well after Peter had been martyred. The evidence points to the conclusion that it is pseudepigrapha – which is just a fancy name for a category of ancient books that have another persons’ name attached to it to give it more authority. You may have heard of the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc.

We'll take a moment to point out some of that evidence. But the main idea to consider is whether or not this impacts how we treat the Bible. For example, let’s assume that Peter didn’t write this text, does it mean that 2nd Peter is not inspired? Does it mean that it shouldn’t be in the Bible? These are questions that I want to consider.

Let’s look at some of the evidence:

2 Peter 3:15-16
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

This text speaks of “all his letters,” referring to Paul’s letters. This does not have to be a reference to each of the letters that we have of Paul today. But it does indicate a familiarity with at least a few of Paul’s letters. It is possible that because of his status, Peter could have had copies of Paul’s letters. However, the writer here speaks of them as if the audience was quite familiar with these letters. This is not chronologically feasible. If this letter was written by Peter prior to his death around AD 64-67, it seems doubtful that enough time could not have elapsed for sufficient copies of Paul’s letters to have been made and circulated to this extent.

There is another question raised from this text. What does “the other scriptures” refer to? Is this a reference to the Old Testament? Probably not, because it seems that the letter was written to an audience made up primarily of Gentiles. They wouldn’t really care much about the OT. If it wasn’t the OT, then it must be referring to other NT letters or Gospels. This comment makes it sound as if there was a collection of books that were accepted as authoritative to the point that they were called scripture. This means that they had to have been circulated long enough to have developed this acceptance. This brings up the same issue mentioned before. If Peter did write this in the early to mid 60s, there would not have been enough time for any of the writings to have developed authoritative to that extent.

2 Peter 1:14
Since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me.

This verse is commonly regarded as an allusion to John 21:18 when Jesus tells Peter that he will die by crucifixion. I think that is probably correct. The problem is that the Gospel of John was probably not written prior to the early 80s. That would mean that 2 Peter would have had to have been written after John was written. It is clear that Peter was martyred by Nero in the mid 60s. That creates a problem with naming Peter as the author.

However, there is a good explanation for this. If Peter is the author then he would not have gotten this information from the Gospel of John but from Jesus himself. So that would not be a problem. This evidence is probably best seen as corroborative.

There are other issues with the Petrine authorship. For example, the writing style between 1st and 2nd Peter is completely different. Also, 2 Peter and Jude have many similarities. So much so that it is probable that one used the other as a reference when writing. If this were the case, there would have to be some time gap between the two. Otherwise, one of the authors would not have had occasion to become familiar with the other letter to the extent that he would use it as a reference. The most common dating for Jude is late 60s to early 70s. If 2 Peter is written in the mid 60s there is not enough of a time gap. We’ve got to remember that the world then was completely different. There was no mail service. Letters had to be hand carried, which usually meant travel by boat or donkey or foot. It took time. Also, we can’t forget that getting a copy of a letter assumed literacy or money. Neither of which was common then. Assuming all this to be the case, either Jude or 2 Peter is dated much later. The evidence points to 2 Peter.

There are many different ways to respond to reading some of this information. You may have been able to reason away each of these evidences. And you may be correct. Or you may accept each of these evidences. Let’s say for the sake of discussion that there is validity to these arguments; and that 2 Peter was probably not written by the Apostle Peter. Does that influence your feelings about the text? Should it influence your feelings? Does it mean that the text isn’t inspired? Was there a mistake somewhere along the way and someone circumvented God’s will and inserted this letter in when it shouldn’t have been? These are all legitimate questions that we’ll address in the next post.

Something's Missing?

2010-05-25T22:56:00.000-05:00

We have recently had a "surge" of visitors at our Church lately. (I'm really not sure what a surge is - but it sounded good). Some have come once and not returned. Others have been coming back. And there are a couple who have been coming off and on for a while. I wonder what they are looking for? I've only "shopped" for a Church twice. I didn't like it. I wasn't very good at it.

I wonder, what do people look for when they go shopping for a new Church? I've heard a few things: doctrinally sound, progressive, no musical instruments, a "good" preacher, great singing, good classes for my children, and the list goes on. You may have your own list.

I started thinking more about this and looked through some preacher want-ads. What do Churches look for in a Preacher? A lot of it had to do with education and experience. That's to be expected. But a lot of the other requirements were things like "doctrinally sound," conservative, progress, grace-oriented, dynamic, strong leadership skills, etc. (By the way, do you actually think anyone considers themselves to not be doctrinally sound? People write stuff like that as if a potential preacher would read it and then think, "well, I don't follow God's Word so I may as well not apply?" I have always thought that was such a dumb thing to list.)

You know what I have never heard a Church shopper or a Church that was shopping say, that they were looking for a Church or Preacher that loves Jesus and His Church. In fact, I have never seen a Preacher Want-Ad that says anything about loving Jesus. Nor do I recall ever having heard anyone say they liked a Church because it was clear that they loved Jesus Christ.

Ever wonder why Churches are dying? Wonder no more. At some point, we started to care more about our opinions and preferences than Jesus.

Check Out this Old School Acappella video

2010-05-22T23:47:00.006-05:00

This is a video of the original Acappella group singing on the Gaither show. They were amazing. There is a lot of their music on YouTube. It brings back great memories!

A Quick Vent on Politics

2010-05-22T01:01:00.010-05:00

I have never used this blog to talk about politics but I am going to break that streak here. I need to vent.

What in the world is wrong with our Congressional leaders?! How can they stand up and applaud another head-of-state that is speaking out against one of our states in our own House?! That is absurd! I can understand differences of opinion and even a little stupidity - but that is unacceptable! No one should be allowed to come into our home and be disrespectful. What one of our states chooses to do is none of his business.

I am usually even keel when it comes to politics - everything runs in cycles and always self-corrects. But this is scary. When I saw our VP and Speak of the House stand behind and applaud the Mexican president, I wanted to throw up (and punch both of them). No matter where your beliefs are politically we still must all be united. November can't come soon enough!

By the way - it's not migration - it's illegal immigration!!!

Χριστιανὸν

2010-05-20T16:54:00.000-05:00

Χριστιανὸν is the greek work that we translate as "Christian." The actual meaning of this Greek word in follower of Christ.

Do you ever feel like you have become desensitized to certain words or actions, or maybe even to watching or hearing certain things? I do, to often. It's easy to do because it's one of the ways that Satan tries to slowly get into our life. But did you ever think that Satan would ever try to desensitize you to the word Christian? Every time we list you're religious preference on a survey or talk about your faith at work or with friends, most of us probably talk in terms of being a Christian. That really doesn't mean as much as it might have at one time. I recently read that as many as 85% of Americans consider themselves to be a "Christian."

Think about it . . . do you think that 85% of Americans actually live as Christians? I doubt it. Do you think that 85% of the people you worship with really live as Christians? Maybe, barely.

Now what if we quit using the term Christian? What if, instead of saying Christian we said, "follower of Christ?" There's been times where it would be a lot harder for me to tell people that I am a follower of Christ - because it there has been times when I obviously wasn't following Him very closely, if at all. What about you?

If we all agreed to quit using the word "Christian" to describe our faith or religious affiliation one of two things would probably happen. (1) People would be much more considerate of whether they actually considered themself a follower of Christ and as a result not classify themselves as such so quickly or (2) people would start to realign their life so that it would look like they were actually following after Jesus more than they are now.

Honestly, old habits are hard to break. So I'll probably continue to refer to myself as a Christian. But I know that I'm going to try a lot harder to live as a follower of Christ.

When Did We Stop?

2010-05-18T13:17:00.000-05:00

When did we stop being the Church of the first century? When did we stop trying to be the Church of the first century? Those questions are actually a bit misleading, so let me try again. The Church in the first century included congregations with issues - some with fairly significant issues. So, probably a better question is to ask is, when did we stop trying to restore New Testament Christianity? Was there a point in time when, collectively, we agreed that we had arrived at our goal and then set up camp and stayed put? I don't know about you, but sometimes it feels like that is what we have done.

We worship at different congregations. We worship at different types of congregations - some with very little in common. But the one consistently correspondent trait is that we all think we are being the Church that Jesus established and the Apostles gave their lives to grow. Is that possible, that we can "do Church" so differently yet all be "doing Church" correctly? Some Christians passionately say yes. We can have our differences and no one has the right to judge my preferences. Others passionately say no; and insist that there is only one way and if it's not done that one way then all is lost, and there can be no fellowship.

It seems that we are at an impass. We can continue to throw rocks at each other. What I mean is, we can continue to call each other names like, liberal or legalist; and we can continue to refuse fellowship with one another. Or, we can commit to one other to seek the Truth of God's Word and only God's Word; and thereby find a common ground where we can live in harmony. Because, make no mistake, we are at an impass and something has got to give. We are losing souls because we can't agree on whose opinion we are going to honor.

So what did the First Century Church look like? Well, that's a question that I am hardly qualified to answer and couldn't attempt in a short amount of time. But there's some things that we can't know because the Bible just doesn't tell us. But there are many things that we can know. For example, we can know that the Apostles thought it was wrong for women to take a leading role in public worship. We can also know that the New Testament Christians didn't use instruments in worship. It's not because there were no instruments available. For some reason they purposefully excluded them. Probably because the teaching they were receiving from the Apostles and their local prophets was telling them only to sing. That's all the New Testament gives us. So that's what we have to go on.

There's other things we can know for sure. The Apostles and prophets never mentioned how God desires the singing to be led. Nor did they mention when, where and how often they must meet on the first day of the week. Nor did they talk about translations of the scrolls (i.e. scriptures, doesn't that sound silly. I can't believe we argue about that one). They also didn't give any direction on how we are supposed to dress when we assemble together for worship and Bible study. The list could go on. Throughout the course of the past few generations we have developed customs and preferences based primarily on practical necessity and culture. And now we stand here today insisting that our customs and preferences be honored or else.

Like I said before, when did we stop trying to restore New Testament Christianity? When did my opinion become more important than God's Word? When did I stop deeply searching for the Truth of God's revelation and begin accepting man's interpretation of it? Family, I could very well be completely mistaken. If I am please correct me. I love God too much to disappoint Him, especially when I could easily be corrected. And I don't want to stand before Him having taught people incorrectly. It is past time for us to kick Satan out of the Church, bring Jesus back in and get about the business of being followers of Christ and growers of the Kingdom. What do you think? Is it time for another Restoration Movement?

What's YOUR Hermeneutic? Read this to find out!

2010-05-14T16:57:00.002-05:00

I was recently asked this question: what's your hermenuetic? I know why I was asked - to find out if I thought like they thought. But I wasn't real sure how to answer that; and i'm really still not sure. Hermeneutic, now that's a fancy college word. Hang on a sec, I'm going to look it up on webster.com . . . Okay here's the definition: a method or principle of interpretation. Let me ask myself that same question a different way: how do you interpret the Bible? That's easier to understand. Let me ask you the question: how do you interpret the Bible? As a kid, I heard my Grandfather teach Command, Example and Necessary Inference (CENI). If you're affliated with the Restoration Movement then I'm sure you know more about this then I do.

I want to try something a little different. Let's play Jeopardy with this. Hermeneutics for $300 Alec. The answer is . . . CENI. Ding. What is,"Why do I do what I do in 'Church'?" Did I get the $300 bucks? Isn't that essentially what the question is? Not all, but most everyone I know seem to accept this method of interpretation. The Necessary Inference part seems a little shaky and I think the three of them together discount the historical context of the text. But let's not digress. So, we seek to answer questions like why do I worship on Sunday? Why do we sing praises to God when we assemble? Why do share in the Lord's Supper when we do, and other questions like that by using the CENI methodology. I don't know about you, but like I said, that seems to work pretty well.

But there is a PROBLEM with this method and here it is - what do you do with questions that can't be answered by CENI? What about questions like, do we have to meet together twice on Sunday? Do we have to meet together for announcements and an invitation on Wednesday nights (instead of only having Bible class)? Do we have to meet at the building for formal Bible study on Wednesday nights? Can we meet in homes on Tuesday nights? What translation of the Bible should I/we use? How should we organize and conduct our worship assembly? These are questions that people have decided fellowship on. Let me be more clear, some Christians refuse to acknoweldge other Churches and Christians because they don't answer these questions the same way as they do. That's awful and not scriptural - but again - I'll try not to digress. So how do we answer questions that our method for answering questions can't answer? For example, they were living out the contents of the NT. So Jesus, Paul, Peter or any other inspired person never said a word about which translation to use. In fact, there wasn't even consensus on which version of the Old Testamen to use - the Hebrew or the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew). In fact, Paul actually used both depending on which one helped him to make his particular point better. So how in the world can we be dogmatic about which translation to use today??? The inspired authors used more than one translation of their Bible and they never said anything about it because it wasn't important to them. Because of that, we shouldn't be making an issue of it today.

Here's another one. None of the apostles ever mentioned how we should conduct our singing? A song leader, a praise team, spontaneous singing or something else? Maybe Paul was a baritone and liked to lead singing when he preached? Maybe there was only one scroll of the Psalms in Berea, so one guy had to sing by himself until all the other new, non-Jewish Christians learned the words, or had some translated into Latin or Greek? Ever consider that? So why do some people call other Christians sinners for having a praise team? Well, because it becomes a performance. I know I've heard that too. In fact, I used to think that until I started seeing song leaders who liked to put on a show by themselves - that kind of wiped out that argument.

There are so many questions that can't be answered with our traditional method of interpretation. That's why the Restoration Movement accepted the phrase "Speak where to Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent." So why did we quit following that saying? Here's the question one more time for you to answer. Why do we do what we do - if the Bible doesn't say anything about it? Well, there are two primary methods of interpretation that are usually applied. First, let's just do what we've always done. That's easy and upsets the fewest amount of people. Second, this is what I think and what I like, so we're going to do this because I'm in charge (i.e. i've got the money, been here the longest or am the most power or obnoxious Elder). Does that sound Christ-like?

Okay, I promise this will be the last time I ask the question: why do YOU do what YOU do when it comes to living out the written revelation of God? It's time to start restoring New Testament Christianity - AGAIN.

Unforgivable - Matthew 12:31-32

2010-05-13T12:03:00.001-05:00

In this text Jesus makes the statement that anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. This passage is scary, tough and brings up so many questions. It seems like Jesus is saying that there is a sin that I can commit for which I can’t receive forgiveness. Is it possible that as a Christian that I can commit a sin that Jesus’ blood does not cover? What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? How can I be sure that I have never done that, even accidentally? These are legitimate questions that many Christians have struggled with. Let’s try to answer them together.

As we study God’s Word we have to be careful not just to take a text that we read and try to apply it without considering why it was said, why it was written, whom it was said or written to and what was going on in the verses surrounding it. If we don’t answer these questions then we are being irresponsible with the text and risk misunderstanding the message that God wishes for us to have. Having said that, here’s what was going on in this passage. Jesus had just healed a blind and mute demoniac (v22). This caused many people in the crowd to question if this was indeed the “Son of David” (v23). In other words, they were asking if this could possibly be the Messiah that was referred to in the Old Testament (2 Sam 7:16; Isa 9:6-7).

This upset the Pharisees. No way could the Messiah be some poor guy from Nazareth. To them, the Messiah was going to come from Bethlehem and be a great king who would lead them out from under the Roman rule. To them, there was no way this was Jesus; and to even consider that it might be was unacceptable. Knowing this, we can understand their response to the crowd (v24). But before we look at their response, understand that it was common for some people to have the ability to perform exorcisms like Jesus had (v27). They were not attacking Jesus for performing the miracle. Back to their response; when they heard what the crowd was thinking, they became enraged and said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons” (v24). In other words, they accused Jesus of using the power of Satan to perform His miracle.

This is the context of Jesus’ response to them. He first argued against them from a logical point of view (v25-26). In these verses Jesus made the point that Satan wouldn’t allow his power to be used to cast his own demons out of people – that would be self-defeating and just doesn’t make sense. It’s like an army fighting against itself. Then after a couple of other comments He concludes His argument by saying, “Therefore, I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven” (v31).

Understanding what was going on makes this verse fairly easy to understand. It’s obvious that the sin Jesus was referring to was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. In order for Jesus to have said it in this manner, someone must have just committed this sin. That would have to be the comments made by the Pharisees; because that’s what Jesus was responding to. So whatever they said must have been blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Look back at what they said; “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons” (v24). By saying this, they were trying to attack Jesus but He took it as an attack against the Holy Spirit. Why? Because the Holy Spirit is what gave Him is ability to perform the miracles. In other words, according to Jesus, they attributed the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan. That was the specific sin that Jesus was upset about and that is what he was referring to as blasphemy against the Spirit.

Is that a sin that you or I can commit today? Some argue that since Jesus or the Holy Spirit are not working in that manner today that we are not able to say that the work coming from them is from Satan. While others contend that because the Holy Spirit is still active in other ways that we can still attribute that work to the power of Satan. I’ll let you this final question for yourself.

Happy Mother's Day

2010-05-11T00:49:00.001-05:00

Proverbs 31:10 says "An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels."

Yesterday we all had the opportunity to thank our wives for being such great Moms. Our family did what many families do. We went to worship together and then go out and celebrate by letting Mom choose the restaurant; and because they are such wonderful Moms they were thankful and grateful. We had a great time together and then today was pretty much back to normal.

Of course, every day can't be a celebration - at least not for my family because we'd go broke :-) But I have been beating myself up a little lately because too often it takes a special day to remind to honor my Godly wife and mother of my children. Like the virtuous woman, her worth is far above any jewel on earth. Sometimes though, I don't tell her enough.

We can always say thank you and I love you more often; and it can be even more meaningful if we sometimes say it without words. May God bless your family.

Being a Leader is HARD

2010-04-09T16:57:00.001-05:00

Being a leader is tough. Let me say that again. Being a good leader is tough. Anyone can stand up in the front of the line and say "follow me." But truly leading people is so hard to do well.

I was thinking this afternoon about accountability. Actually, about accountability in terms of making tough decisions. A leader who is not accountable to himself, his responsibilities or his organization will pass over the tough decisions. Either by passing the buck so that someone else has to do it and then can be blamed for it. Or by simply ignoring the issue that needs to be decided on and hoping it goes away. Neither of these is a good choice. Both errode trust and increase the ineffectiveness of the organization. Neither are a sign of a good leader.

Within the setting of our congregations, our leaders are called on to make tough decisions all the time. And we need to be held accountable by ourselves and the people we are leading to not only make those decisions, but to make effective decisions. That's the other part of what makes this so tough.

For some leaders, decision-making is easy. They enjoy the responsibility and are comfortable with being at the front of the line. However, to often, some leaders make decisions based off of their comfort-zones, their opinions and their interests. When they should be setting aside all subjectivity and objectively gathering information, weeding through it and then coming to the decision that best moves the congregation towards achieving its' goals.

Here's an example of where we might be either avoiding addressing or have made decisions based on our opinions or preferences. To have a Gospel Meeting/Homecoming or not? This is a tradition that has been great for the Church! Thousands of Christians have come to Christ through a Gospel Meeting. And countless more have been restored while attending one. The catch is that all these Christians are now in their 50s or older. Meetings haven't been an effective evangelism tool in at least one, probably two generations. So the question needs to be asked, "what is the goal of a Gospel Meeting?" If it is to evangelize, then it's not meeting its goal and hasn't for some time. And as a result a tough decision needs to be made. If we have changed the goal of a Meeting, then what has it been changed to? Has that been identified and communicated to the congregation? Is it possible that this is a tool that was great at one time, but is no longer effective because of changes in society? Is it possible that we need to put our resources and efforts in another tool to reach lost souls?

Being accountable is one of the biggest keys to being an effective leader. And it is difficult to do well and do consistently. Gospel Meetings are just an easy example to pick on to make this point. Good leadership requires being accountable to everyone - especially the organization. Which means making difficult decisions by objectively considering factual information and not just opinions, preferences and traditions. As leaders we've always got to do what's best for the Church.

Sunday Worship Service

2010-04-07T15:36:00.001-05:00

This is a post from Brett Harrision. He shared some of his thoughts on worship, particularly our Sunday assemblies. He has some good thoughts worthy of our consideration. I put the comments in bold/italics that really caught my attention.

Sunday gatherings as “worship"

I’ve made it known I believe we should rethink what we do in our Sunday gatherings, and even what we call them. I’m afraid we’ve done a great disservice to actual worship by referring to what we do on Sunday mornings as just that — “worship.” Here are a few of my scattered thoughts on Sunday gatherings. For my just as scattered definition of worship, see this.Sunday gathering is an opportunity for believers to bring our lives of worship and obedience and lay them before God. We come together to celebrate what God has been doing in us, and in our community through us. And we encourage one another in this process of worship and obedience. Spiritual gifts are used to build up one another and, more importantly, the body as a whole.

I’m afraid we’ve made worship about songs and sermons. The Old Testament prophets speak to us, yet we refuse to listen. God desires for us to know him, enjoy him, love him, and be obedient to him. He desires for worship to penetrate the very core of our lives, and change who we are — so that we live more and more in keeping with his desires.

We waste a lot of time measuring our Sunday gatherings, in order to assess how “good” they are. The unfortunate truth is that a Sunday gathering can only be as “good” as are the sacrifices of those in attendance. Have I brought before God the fruits of worship, a changed and obedient life? Or have I once again laid before him a blatant disregard for his commandments and wishes?
I believe Sunday gatherings are primarily for Christians — not for visitors and/or proselytizing. We should be using the gifts given us by the Spirit to encourage one another, build up the body of Christ into maturity. Our time together has become about evangelism and “seeker-friendliness” because of our stubborn refusal to be Christ’s representatives in our communities, and to live every day as citizens of God’s kingdom. If we’re not willing to live glaringly spiritual lives in front of non-Christians, what we’re left with is to invite them to a Sunday assembly of the “saints.”

I view Sunday as the last day of my week. My reasoning is that I have lived an obedient life of worship throughout my week, and on Sunday I’m able to bring and lay before God in worship the sacrifice of my own life . I don’t see Sunday as my “day of worship,” but rather it is the day I celebrate with my family my past week of worship. I do worship God on Sundays, but I would suggest no more than on other days of the week. But Sunday is a tool for bringing greater worship in every other day of my life, as I’m encouraged and held accountable by other believers, so that I can worship God by obediently living Christ into the community for another week.

Reflections on Acts 16:6-11

2010-04-06T05:58:00.004-05:00

Next Paul and Silas traveled through the area of Phrygia and Galatia, because the Holy Spirit had prevented them from preaching the word in the province of Asia at that time. Then coming to the borders of Mysia, they headed north for the province of Bithynia, but again the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them to go there. So instead, they went on through Mysia to the seaport of Troas. That night Paul had a vision: A man from Macedonia in northern Greece was standing there, pleading with him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us!” So we decided to leave for Macedonia at once, having concluded that God was calling us to preach the Good News there. We boarded a boat at Troas and sailed straight across to the island of Samothrace, and the next day we landed at Neapolis. From there we reached Philippi, a major city of that district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. And we stayed there several days. - Acts 16:6-11

This passage comes on the heal of Paul and Silas visiting the churches that Paul and Barnabas had established in Galatia during what we know of as the 1st Missionary Journey. As I read this passage, I can't help but see the Holy Spirit working in this situation, guiding Paul's every move. For example, why did God want Paul to go past Asia with all those citites to be evangelized (Ephesus, Miletus, and the seven mentioned in the NT that were at some point obviously evangelized)? Then, Paul didn't stop in Troas to preach. That would have been a great place to preach. A port city with direct route access to Rome and the western world. There were thousands of people coming and going. He could have set a fire that others could have spread with them as they traveled. But, the Holy Spirit didn't want him to stop there. Instead, he received a vision to go to Macedonia. Where he ended up establishing churches in cities such as Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea.

God closed doors and opened doors so wide that there was no doubt to Paul and Silas as to which ones they were to enter into. You know, I think God works a little differently today. I don't think we get visions like Paul did. And the Holy Spirit doesn't speak "out loud" to us. But God hasn't left our side. He's still right there. And just like with Paul, He has a plan for each one of us. We just have to pay attention to which doors He is closing; and more importantly, which doors he has left wide open for you to walk through.

Have the courage today to walk through the doors and be used by God. May God bless and keep you.

Thinking About Easter

2010-04-05T07:04:00.001-05:00

I've been thinking a lot about Easter lately. I suppose this blog's a day or so late, but . . .

Here's where it starts for me. I've always thought that since God has told us to celebrate Jesus' resurrection each Sunday, there's really no reason to celebrate it on a particular day. Especially considering that the day we celebrate it isn't actually the day that Jesus was resurrected. Easter was actually marked or identified by the Council of Nicea in 325AD. The bottom line for me has always been that it just isn't something God has told us to celebrate. And adding to that, there's no evidence that any of the Apostles or even the early Church fathers mentioned, much less practiced this holiday. Because of this lack of any biblical authority, I've always said "no thanks." Let me just add that my thoughts on Christmas are pretty much the same.

As I see more and more congregations going to Easter services I'm left wondering why? What's the point? Why are they doing it? And more importantly, does this make God happy? Well, I can't answer the last question. I just don't know. But I am much closer to offering a more confident answer to the first couple of questions. Here it is . . . more people go to "church" on that day than any other. These folks who are presumably lost are there for one reason and one reason only - to celebrate Easter. This is an open door. Is it a door that God opened? I'm not certain. But I am sure that it's an opportunity to engage people in a conversation about Jesus Christ and the resurrection that provides hope to all men everywhere.

One thing I am sure of, the Church has been missing too many opportunities and closing too many doors. Perhaps this is one we should be walking through?

Did you hear that?

2010-04-04T21:43:00.009-05:00

Do you ever listen to the rhetoric in prayers? We say some silly things sometimes. One thing that gets me everytime is when we pull out the King James talk. You can take the most laid-back, regular ole' southern guy who speaks with a drawl and probably couldn't tell you what the Elizabethan period is, and then stick him in front of a microphone and he starts sounding like Hamlet. Why?! What is the point?

One more and I'll stop complaining. By the way, I do have a point, I think. What's the point of praying to God that "everything we do will be done in spirit and truth"? First of all, we have taken that one statement from Jesus out of content and absolutely beaten it to death. Here's the other thing, why do we say that to God? What control does He have over the decisions we make in our worship? Either we worship scripturally or we don't. Are we asking God to accept our worship, regardless? I doubt it. Is it that we're asking that He step in and zap us if we're about to do something wrong so that we don't do it? I hope not. If you really think about it for a moment, it's easy to realize how silly that statement is.

Okay, if you're still reading, thank you. Here's my point. Let's start being more thoughtful about our prayers and less robotic. Let's focus more on talking to our creator, our sustainer and our best friend; and worry less about sounding religious or saying the right thing. Let's stop trying to be religious (or show how religious we are) and just start talking to God like He's the most important being in our life.

Divorce and ReMarriage

2010-04-03T03:19:00.008-05:00

This is a repost that I have edited, made some additions to and would like to share again. It has a different title and a bit longer than the first post.

I've never been through a divorce and my parents are still married. So I have never had a front row seat to one of the most awful and damaging events that man has ever invented. But in a recent conversation a dear friend of mine (who has experienced a divorce) described it as going through a death in your family. And that there is an empty void, an empty chair at the kitchen table that can never be filled. Divorce stinks. There is never anything good about it. Ever. And chances are, you have either been through a divorce or personally know of at least a couple of people who have.

I recently heard someone ask this question, "is their divorce scriptural?" I've heard that question (and statement) more than once. It's always gone right over my head. Probably, each time those words are uttered it's in reference to adultery. Meaning, adultery makes divorce scriptural. Here's a question: since when is it okay to get divorced? What scripture is there that says it's scriptural to get divorced for a specific reason? You might be thinking that Matthew 19:9 is the answer. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." The "except for" part does not provide scriptural grounds for getting a divorce. He never condoned divorce. In fact, in the preceeding verse, Jesus states that "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way." I believe that I may be in the minority on this view. I just don't think it was ever God's desire for a husband and wife to divorce, but because of our sinful nature he Has decided to allow it. God has made it clear that He hates divorce (Mal. 2:16). In further defense of my opinion, it just doesn't make sense to say that a divorce is scriptural only when your spouse cheats on you. Does that mean that a woman who is being abused and then leaves and divorces her husband is unscripturally divorced? No, of course not! God hates it that our sins have created a desire and in some cases a necessity to get a divorce. That includes all sins and all divorces.

As with any topic, it would be foolish to take another person's view and ignorantly claim that as your own. Study the scripture for yourself. Think about it for yourself and come to your own conclusion. Here are a couple of things for you to consider. There are only five passages that teach on divorce and remarraige. Here they are: Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:10-16.

James O. Baird wrote a "little" book in 1981, And I Say Unto You . . .: A Study of Eight Positions on Divorce and Remarraige in View of Matthew 19:3-12. In this book he covers eight possible positions on the issue of divorce and remarraige. Here's a reworded list of them.

1. The only scriptural reason for remarriage is if your spouse dies.

2. The only reason a person can remarry is if your spouse "physically" cheated on you. This is the traditional view of within the churches of Christ.

3. A Christian may remarry if their divorce occured before they became a Christian because baptism washes away all sins.

4. Since non-Christians are not in a covenant relationship with God, the laws of Christ do not apply to them, and so a Christian may remarry if his or her divorce occurred before baptism. This is the same ending as #3 but for a different reason. This view was popularized by JD Bales in his book, Not Under Bondage (1979).

5. If a Christian's spouse leaves then they are not bound to the marraige and may remarry. Scriptural justification for this view is found in 1 Corinthians 7:15.

6. Both spouses in a divorce involving sexual sin may remarry. This includes the person who committed the sexual sin, once that person has repented for his sins. This is the view that Gus Nichols held to.

7. Both spouses may remarry if their divorce was for "legal" reasons. In other words, if it was legal in the view of their government.

8. Both parties may remarry no matter what was the cause of their divorce because repentance and forgiveness do not include the restoration of their original marraige to each other.

Let's assume that we take position #2 and cite Matthew 19:9 as scriptural evidence (this is my view on the matter and is probably the most common with evangelicals - especially those of us within the Restoration tradition). If we believe that a person only has scriptural authority to remarry if their spouse committed adultery against them, how then should we handle marraiges within our fellowship when the couple is not married within that scriptural authority? Threre seems to be three responses available.

1. Ignore it. This is not acceptable if we feel that the couple is living in sin. To ignore sin is to condone sin, which is to sin.

2. We can demand that the couple separate because God never recognized their marraige in first place. It has come to my attention that this is a common view. I completely disagree with this.

3. We teach the scriptures. And we teach the couple that their choice to marry in spite of a lack of scriptural authority was a sin against God. And that they need to repent publicly for their sin. But, we do not insist on a separation or termination of their marraige. I understand that you may completely disagree. But allow me a moment to explain.

Think back to when God instituted marraige. It was never for His own benefit. He saw that man was lonely and thought it would be good for him to have a companion. It was for man's benefit. Move forward to when divorce was addressed in the OT and again by Jesus. It is abundantly clear that divorce is a sin and that God hates divorce. For our discussion, the question is then why. Why does God hate divorce? Why does God not want for a couple to divorce. For me the answer is fairly obvious - because of the pain that we inflict on each other. God knows and understands the damage that we create when we sin against our marraige and when we divorce. And his ultimate desire is for man and woman to marry and live together for the benefit of one another. Assuming that logic and reasoning to be correct, why then would God require another divorce that would lead to more pain, more hurt and more damage to a family (in most cases including children)? That just doesn't seem logical. Instead, because the couple has publicly sinned we ought to treat their sin as we would any other - with public confession and repentance.

Though he and I do not agree on all these issues I am indebted to Dr. David Warren for his insight and teaching on the matter.

Explaining Shepherds Instead of Elders

2010-04-02T11:25:00.009-05:00

Here's a few thoughts on the last post. Actually, this is why I think those Elders are spot on with their asseessment and why I agree with them so earnestly.

This generation of Elderships is going to turn over a Church to the next generation of (hopefully) Shepherds that is full of strife, internal attacks and division; and worst of all, thousands of dying Churches that will be taken off life support during their generation or possibly my childrens' generation. For all the concern and complaining about the state of the United States and the economic system; the Church in the United States is in far worse shape. The good news is that it is completely fixable. Through God's grace we are only a step away from redemption. But it has to start at the top. It has to start with the Shpeherds. That's why these men caught my attention.

If you haven't read the previous post, here's a very short summary. They choose to identify themselves as Shepherds (instead of Elders) because it helps them to remain focused on the primary responsibility of feeding, protecting and leading the sheep that Jesus entrusted them with. They (and I) contend that the worldly idea of a 'board of directors' has infiltrated and essentially polluted the Churches' understanding of the Eldership - which leads to Godly men stepping outside of their God-given roles and turning into a management team or 'board of directors'.

I agree completely. Here's an example of what I am talking about. Consider the congregation where you worship. When someone comes forward to publicly seek repentence and reconciliation, who greets them, takes their confession and shares that with the assembly? Is it the Elders or the preacher. It's been my personal experience that usually it's the preacher. And when that happens, the Elders abdicate their authority and responsibility of caring for and protecting the sheep, and pass it on the preacher. Which results in the preacher taking on a the role of a denominational Pastor. Neither of these outcomes are scriptural. Here's an example from the other side. Consider for a moment who makes the decisions on where to spend money and how much will be spent. I've never seen an Eldership abdicate their authority on money decisions to anyone, especially a preacher. Why, because it's not the preachers' role. And by taking on that responsibility the Church would, by default, ease towards becoming Pastor-lead.

These examples certainly don't apply 100% across the board. But let's assume that these examples do apply and that they occur more frequently than we would like to admit. Consider the unintended outcome of this. Elderships are making the decision to prioritize business or money decisions ahead of the care of souls. When I think of the problem in these terms it really its me like a punch in the stomach.

Before I quit writing, I want to say that I am not dumping on Elders. Everyone now and then, you might run into a man who has become power hungry and egotistical about his authority. But the majority of time, the Elders are men who love God and the Church with all their heart - and they are doing the best they can. In my opinion, the problem is a lack of training. You would be hard-pressed to find a congregation who would hire a preacher with no training. But we would be hard-pressed to find a congregation that ordained an Elder that had training. The Shepherds have a greater responsibility than a preacher could fathom. Yet we throw them out their and leave them to their own devices.

Shepherds Instead of Elders

2010-03-31T21:08:00.001-05:00

I came across this explanation of Elders and Shepherds on the website for the Stones River church of Christ. This is a direct copy and paste (the web site is http://stonesriverfamily.wordpress.com/shepherds/). Take a moment and read through this. These Shepherds really seem to understand what their role in the Church is.

Why do you call yourselves shepherds rather than elders?
The group of men who provide spiritual direction for the Stones River Church are referred to as “shepherds.” This breaks with the traditional practice of Churches of Christ, and is done for a specific purpose.

We acknowledge that the term “elder,” which is more traditionally used, is certainly a biblical term. But we also realize that many words in current usage are influenced as much (in some cases more) by current practices as they are by biblical meaning. We are concerned that American business culture shapes the traditional ideas attached to the word “elders.” Too many unknowingly use the term as though it were synonymous with a corporate board of directors. Rather than being a self-perpetuating board, biblical “elders” were called to their roles of leadership by the congregation’s recognition of a lifestyle of mature godly influence. A close reading of the biblical passages using this term presents a leadership born out of respect, a respect earned through seniority, example, ability, knowledge, and service.

Because we desire to avoid the verbal confusion common usage evidences, we’ve chosen to refer to ourselves by the equally biblical term “shepherds.” Because the biblical passages influence the meaning we attach to this word more than corporate America, we think it provides some important safeguards. First, the relation of shepherd and sheep is built on trust (John 10:3). The shepherd’s role of seeking the lost is another powerful image (Matthew 18:12-14). Shepherds care for their flock, binding up wounds, protecting the weak from the over-bearing strong, and feeding the sheep. It is the job of shepherds to guard the sheep against dangers (John 10:1-12). Then there is the shepherd sacrificing himself for the sheep (John 10:11). Biblical shepherds primarily lead through their example. Their godly, mature lifestyle coupled with their verbal teaching of the word guides the church in “paths of righteousness.”

We seek to lead by example rather than edict. We have no desire to legislate what we cannot influence reasonable disciples to discover for themselves from scripture.

In the short-term it might be easier to operate as a board of directors. The organization might function as a well-oiled machine. But will the traditional model realize our goal of nurturing mature disciples? That is the question we’ve grappled with and as a result we’ve chosen an alternate course. We do not presume to judge others who choose differently. But this is why we respond as we do.

Why do you have an Administrative Committee?
This is another place where Stones River Church is different. Because we believe the “board of directors” concept is too easily attached to “elders,” we want to guard against slipping into this function. Since that is what might expect from us, it would be all too easy to morph into such a role while trying to deny it in our terminology.

Any modern group acquires legal responsibilities when it chooses to own property and to function within our current social structure. We desire to operate in ways that honor God and guard against needlessly rejecting reasonable laws. To respond in our corporate world without becoming transformed into a “board of directors”, we need people who will address these issues while not being sucked into it ourselves. We don’t in any way belittle the necessary functions of a board of directors; rather, we refuse to allow such responsibilities to override our primary accountability for spiritual oversight. We’ve chosen to designate a team of people gifted with spiritual wisdom and administrative insight to attend to these necessary responsibilities. They address our financial and legal issues so we are free to attend to the spiritual concerns of this church family.

The Name Calling Needs to Stop!

2010-03-29T17:03:00.004-05:00

The name calling and rhetoric among differing "camps" in the Church seems to be screaming out at an all-time high. And it's really begun to hurt my ears. Christians calling names and labeling other Christians needs to stop - unless, of course, we're calling each other Brother or Sister. I'm not talking about ugly names that we teach our kids not to use. Nope, I'm referring to the nasty, devisive words that we freely use in front of our children as we condemn those that we ought to be teaching them to unite with. How often do we use and hear these four words (each paired together): progresive and traditional, liberal and conservative?

When it comes to these words, Christians have done more redefining than Webster himself. We've used 'our' definitions of these names to categorize and group ourselves and then to throw rocks at everyone who wasn't invited into our group. It really needs to stop. Every day, I live with the guilt of knowing that I spent years with my head down looking for the next rock to hurl instead of looking up, searching for my brother to serve. I've asked God to forgive me. After God, I owe more people apologies than I could ever name in a lifetime.

For me, the irony is overwhelming. Not only in terms of my own guilt, but because I have been called both a liberal and an ultra-conservative. How is that possible? Only because of the inherent fallacy of the name calling. The truth is, I have spent most of my life being taught to be a conservative and doing my best to live out my training. So, I'm really not shocked that I have been described as an ultra-conservative. But when a friend told me that I was thought of as liberal and the congregation where my wife and I had just placed membership would not allow me to teach Bible classes, I was devastated; and I gave Satan the foothold I knew to avoid. The fact is, I was called an ultra-conservative because of my narrow-minded views and judgemental attitude. I was 'marked' as a liberal only because I went to Harding University. I suppose I should have gone to Freed-Hardeman. Although, I suppose that for those Christians, the Memphis School of Preaching would have been even better.

Enough of the rambling monologue. No more bloviating. Here's why I have changed my thoughts, and why I hope that you will consider doing the same.

Here's how I define those terms. Perhaps, this will help you to arrive at your own defintion or increase your personal understand of how you have been thinking. The idea of being 'traditional' cannotes the idea of sticking to traditions. For example, the congregation where I worship and serve has a tradition of assembling twice on Sunday. We're traditional in that sense. Whereas, another congregation chooses to meet only in the morning for worship and Bible study then chooses to meet in smaller groups that evening. That congregation would be thought of as progressive because of they have progressed forward away from the tradition of meeting twice on Sunday. Coincidentally, that congregation would also probably be attacked with large rocks and called liberal for that decision. But that's another discussion.

Conservative and liberal is considerably more abstract and relative, which makes them harder to define with consistency and accuracy. This is also one of the primary agruments I have against using these terms in any capacity as it relates to characterizing Christians or specific congregations. To you, I might be liberal. But to another person I am a rigid and conservative idealogue. For example, the fact that I have absolutely no problem with a praise team being used to amplify worship would make me a liberal to some of my brothers and sisters in the area where I live. However, because I am not comfortable with a praise team (including women) being in front of the assembly, many other folks whom I love dearly would think of me as a conservative. So where is the baseline? How do I know if I am right to label myself or someone else one way or another. You don't and you can't. There will always be someone more or less liberal than you. As well, there will always be someone more or less conservative than you.

This leads to the biggest issue I have with these names; and why I am so tired of hearing them. THEY ARE NOT BIBLICAL NAMES. I am proud to be affliated with the Restoration Movement (though I could hardly classify it as a movement these days). One self-defining term of the restoration plea is calling Bible things by Bible names. I'm not sure if that holds any authority with you or not. But I find it terribly ironic that many who hold to that creed also hold dearly to the idea that conservative is right and liberal is wrong. None of these four words (progressive, traditional, conservative, liberal) were ever uttered from the mouth of our Lord, nor those that He commisioned to begin and grow His Church. Why on earth would I then do it?!

Instead of approaching conflict and differences of opinion by hurling rocks across the arbitrary line that we have drawn, let's step across the line and take our brothers by the hand and love each other. We're not always going to agree. And on some issues, someone is going to end wrong. But instead of taking on the role of judge and executioner with each, let's reserve those roles for the one person who earned them. Instead, why don't you and I focus on loving as best we can, and teaching as best we know how.

An Illegal Trial

2010-03-27T01:25:00.000-05:00

When we preach and teach the crucifixion of Jesus, it seems that we often skim through our study of the trials so that we can get straight to the theological aspect of actual death and resurrection. When we do this, we miss one of the huge pieces of the entire puzzle. We can't forget that the trial(s) was a complete sham. That was a huge part of the entire theological process. Just consider this, had the trial not been fixed, then Jesus would have been found "not guilty"! Where would we be then?

Here's a few examples of just how bad the trials were rigged.

1. Jesus was convicted and executed even though the judge (Pilate) ruled that he was not guilty.

2. There was no legal basis for Him to be arrested. There were never any formal charges when He was arrested. He was just handcuffed and taken away.

3. Jesus was questioned at night. Jewish law was specific that all trials had to be conducted during the day. Jesus' trial was held at night so that no one would be available to testify on His behalf.

4. The indictment was illegal because the Jewish judges (the Sanhedrin) were the people who originated the charges - not a witness. The judge of the trial can't be the one to make the accusation.

5. The trial began and ended in one day. This was illegal because capital offense cases could not be concluded in one day. Ample time was to be given to make sure any possible witnesses would be given a chance to come forward.

6. Jesus was condmned on His own testimony (Luke 22:67-71). This was illegal. The Jews had the 5th Amendment too.

7. The location of the trial was not legal. Jesus' trial was held at a private residence (the High Priests' home). According to the law, a death sentence could only be pronounced in the court's appointed place.

8. The court illegally switched charges when they got Jesus to Pilate. In the Jewish trial, Jesus was convicted on blasphemy. Yet, in front of Pilate He was charged with treason.

8 Views of a Controversial Topic

2010-03-20T14:18:00.006-05:00

I recently heard someone ask this question, "is their divorce scriptural?" I've heard that question (and statement) more than once. It's always gone right over my head. Probably, each time those words are uttered it's in reference to adultery. Meaning, adultery makes divorce scriptural. Here's a question: since when is it okay to get divorced? What scripture is there that says it's scriptural to get divorced for a specific reason? You might be thinking that Matthew 19:9 is the answer. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." The "except for" part does not provide scriptural grounds for getting a divorce. Jesus is giving an allowance to get remarried after a divorce. In the preceeding verse, Jesus states that "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way." It was never God's desire for a husband and wife to divorce, but because of our sinful nature he Has decided to allow it. God has made it clear that He hates divorce (Mal. 2:16).

It just doesn't make sense to say that a divorce is scriptural only when your spouse cheats on you. Does that mean that a woman who is being abused and then leaves and divorces her husband is unscripturally divorced? No, of course not! God hates it that our sins have created a desire and in some cases a necessity to get a divorce. That includes all sins and all divorces. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus is creating a precedent for allowing a divorced spouse to remarry.

As with any topic, it would be foolish to take another person's view and ignorantly claim that as your own. Study the scripture for yourself. Think about it for yourself and come to your own conclusion. Here are a couple of things for you to consider. There are only five passages that teach on divorce and remarraige. They are: Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:10-16.

James O. Baird wrote a "little" book in 1981, And I Say Unto You . . .: A Study of Eight Positions on Divorce and Remarraige in View of Matthew 19:3-12. In this book he covers eight possible positions on the issue of divorce and remarraige. Here's a reworded list of them.

1. The only scriptural reason for remarriage is if your spouse dies.

2. The only reason a person can remarry is if your spouse "physically" cheated on you. This is the traditional view of within the churches of Christ.

3. A Christian may remarry if their divorce occured before they became a Christian because baptism washes away all sins.

4. Since non-Christians are not in a covenant relationship with God, the laws of Christ do not apply to them, and so a Christian may remarry if his or her divorce occurred before baptism. This is the same ending as #3 but for a different reason. This view was popularized by JD Bales in his book, Not Under Bondage (1979).

5. If a Christian's spouse leaves then they are not bound to the marraige and may remarry. Scriptural justification for this view is found in 1 Corinthians 7:15.

6. Both spouses in a divorce involving sexual sin may remarry. This includes the person who committed the sexual sin, once that person has repented for his sins. This is the view that Gus Nichols held to.

7. Both spouses may remarry if their divorce was for "legal" reasons. In other words, if it was legal in the view of their government.

8. Both parties may remarry no matter what was the cause of their divorce because repentance and forgiveness do not include the restoration of their original marraige to each other.

*I am indebted to Dr. David Warren for his teaching on this matter.

Some Fatherly Advice

2010-03-18T16:56:00.001-05:00

“Listen, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength. And you must commit yourselves wholeheartedly to these commands that I am giving you today. Repeat them again and again to your children. Talk about them when you are at home and when you are on the road, when you are going to bed and when you are getting up. Tie them to your hands and wear them on your forehead as reminders. Write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."

This passage is from Deuteronomy 6:4-9; and it's one of my favorite in all the Bible. The Israelites are getting ready to cross over the Jordan River and move into their new homeland - the land that God has been promising them since they left Egypt. A lot has gone on between now and when Moses led them out that night. One of the biggest things to happen was that Moses got himself into trouble with God. And his punishment was that he was not going to be allowed to go into the Promised land with the rest of the Israelites.

For quite some time now, Moses has been their spiritual father. He has led them, cared for them, watched after them and even judged them. Without Moses they certainly wouldn't have made it this far. And now, Moses has one last opportunity to give them some directions, some wisdom, some advice before they go on without him. This is like a parent sending their kid off to college for the first time - only these kids would never return. The book of Deuteronomy records for us what all Moses told his kids.

This passage you just read is one of the most poignant, inspiring and challenging of Moses' messages. The last sentence is verse 9. Referring to the commandments that he had given them, he told them to write them on the doorposts of their homes and on their gates. As much as this was a literal command for them - it's a metaphorical command for us. He told them to do that so that everyone who came to their home would know that without any doubt, that God was worshipped, honored and respected in that home. And also, it was a constant reminded for the family that lived there that the Lord was the God of that home. And that He was the center of their family. And that He, and He alone, would be worshipped, honored and respected in their home.

God hasn't called us to write his commandments on our houses anymore. Instead, we are supposed to write them on our hearts and demonstrate them in our lives. Is your home a place where the Lord is the only God that is worshipped, honored and respected? Do you live that out so forcefully and so aggressively that everyone who knows your family can easily see that?

Take time with your family to look and listen to your home. Is what you see honoring the Lord? Is what you hear honoring the Lord? Maybe it's time to write it on our doorposts again.

He's Got His Priorities Straight

2010-03-13T19:19:00.001-06:00

I was just reading a note from a successful preacher, speaker, writer, etc. who was talking about his schedule and his family and how he makes them fit together. Most of it was normal, expected stuff. But one small note he included really caught my attention.

When he started talking about his hobbies, he said he really didn't have many. He mentioned how a lot of men in his sphere of influence (i.e. job, salary range, family status, etc.), as well as his personal friends, love to play golf. He said that although he enjoys the sport and finds it relaxing - he never plays unless he takes one of his kids or wife with him.

He went on to talk about how busy he was, how much he traveled and how often he was already away from them. He simply said, "why would I want to be away from them anymore than I already am?" Now sometimes it's good for a break and to unwind. But for him, his family was just too important. It is simply more important for him to spend any extra time he has time with his wife and his kids than his pitching wedge. Now he's got his priorities straight.

New Thought on an Old Idea

2010-03-10T21:29:00.000-06:00

What are the qualifications to be an Elder? Paul gives us two lists, one in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and the other in Titus 1:5-9. The lists include: desires the responsibilities, being above reproach, respectable (good reputation with people outside the church), prudent, temperate, has only one wife, Christian children, not accused of rebellious behavior, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not an alcoholic, not quarrrelsome, peaceable, gentle, doesn't earn money immorally, doesn't love money, hospitable, loves what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holds to the teaching of God, has his home under control (with dignity), not a new convert.

This is pretty much all God has chosen to tell us about the qualifications to be an Elder/Shepherd. I wonder if we don't do a disservice to our congregations and our Shepherds by treating this as an exhaustive list. You know what I mean? For instance, we take this checklist and match up the candidate to be a Shepherd, and if he can check off each of the qualifications then he's in.

Does meeting these qualifications mean that he's going to be a good Shepherd? Of course not! So that means there must be more to it. More to it? Yes, like leadership skills - the ability to motivate and train, being blessed with a vision and the ability work as a team and develop a cohesive plan to achieve that vision, and the ability to set meaningful and productive goals. We have too many Shepherds who are not good leaders. Now, each Shepherd doesn't need to have the skills of a CEO. But each congregation must have a majority who have some leadership abilities. And all Shepherds ought to understand this idea enough that they recognize the need for it. Sadly though, too many congregations are led by men who think leadership is just making decisions about how to spend money.

Instead of using these two scriptures as a checklist, try to think of it as a baseline the next time you are installing Shepherds (or evaluating the ones you have now).

We NEED More Leaders

2010-03-08T14:06:00.001-06:00

I preached a sermon last night on leadership. I thought I would share the main points of the sermon.

The premise is that our Churches have a vacancy or a vacuum that exists because there's an absence of leadership. Not from the Shepherds and not from the preachers - but from the Christians. You see, Jesus set up the Church's organizational chart. It's pretty clear. But what folks often fail to realize is that they are on that org chart. And the roles and responsibilities of the Shepherds, preachers and Deacons do not cover everything. And when Christians are fulfilling their roles, then a vacuum or black hole is formed. And unfortunately, too many congregations have been sucked into that black hole, never to be seen or heard from again.

I tried to point out these three lessons - that Jesus needs Christian leaders:

1. Who are Willing to Serve - John 13:1-17

Jesus was preparing the disciples for new form of leadership. They knew about and were expecting the kind that included leading big armies, having riches and lots of power. But what they didn't realize (vs.7) was that Jesus didn't need leaders like that. He had a plan for them to take the torch and grow the Church that He was about to establish. They were going to do that with a new type of leadership. The type that was willing to serve instead of be served.

2. That Dare to Be Different - John 4:1-45

Jesus didn't need to go through Samaria. Most Jews traveling back and forth from Galilee and Judea would cross over the Jordan rive and completely avoid Samaria altogether. But Jesus had to go through Samaria (vs.4) because He understood that there was an entire town that he would reach if He would. And because He did, he saved an entire town and in the process taught His disciples that in order to lead you had to daring enough to be different.

3. That have the Guts to Go - Matthew 14:22-33

Peter made a lot of rash, emotional decisions in his lifetime. Some of them didn't turn out so well. And some of them were great decisions that would should be imulating today. When the storm was at its fiercest, the waves were the highest, the winds were the strongest and all the other disciples were hiding in the boat, Peter had the courage to get out of the boat, down into the water and walk towards Jesus. The Church could certainly use a lot more Christians who have the guts to go.

What does it mean to worship?

2010-03-05T14:43:00.003-06:00

What does it mean to worship? Ever really taken some time with that question? Sometimes I wonder if our traditions involving our assemblies have evolved over time and have slowly turned into our "doctrinal" undertanding of worship. Well, actually, I know it has. That leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of what worship is and worship is not. And equally as unfortunate is that it leads folks to be judgmental of other Christians whose worship assembly does not look like theirs.

Here's a few facts with some personal thougths mixed in for you to consider.

The word worship is translated 181 in most of the common translations. I think it goes as high as 250 in the NIV and 495 in the NLT. That doesn't mean anything other than those two translations hardly use any words other than worship to describe that act. Now when we are digging deeper in our Bible study it's always helpful to gain as much an understanding of the original language. In other words, what Greek or Hebrew word(s) did the inspired authors use that is now translated to our word worship? And just as importantly, what did that word mean to them at that time. That's tremendously important and equally difficult. Because as you know words change their meaning with each generation.

We'll just focus our limited time to the New Testament use of the word. Here's the Greek words that the NT authors used and their meaning.

Proskuneo - this is by far the most common word that is used. That is, each time you read the root word worship (in the NT), it is usually this word. In the first century, someone speaking Greek who said this word would most likely mean to kiss the hand of someone or physically prostrate yourself in front of another person. There are scriptures that use this word and refer to worshipping God, Christ, Man, Idols and even the Satan. So obviously, just because you are worshipping doesn't mean that you're doing something good.

Sebomai - This is the next most common word. And it's kind of the opposite in meaning as compared to proskuneo. Where proskuneo referred to more of a physical act, sebomai refers to more of an emotion or feeling. It means to revere and it stresses the feeling of awe or devotion.

Latreuo - This is by far the least common word that is translated as worship. However, it is actually a common word in the NT. In fact, to translate this word as worship is really not a good translation. It is usually translated "to serve". In the context of worship, or the reason it is sometimes translated as worship is because it can mean to render religious service or homage.

One of those "traditions" that I was referring to earlier is the idea that we go to "worship service" on Sundays. Given the definitions of the word and the uses in the Bible, that's just not a scriptural statement. That term is never, not once, used in the Bible. There's no example of Christians going to a worship service and no command from Jesus or any NT writer to go to a worship service. I wonder, for those of us who are affliated with the restoration movement, whatever happened to the slogan "Call Bible things by its Bible name"?

By the way, there is file on worship on the Bible Class Resources page. You can find the link at the top of this page. It's a brief study, but there is a little more information to look at.

Bible Translations

2010-03-04T01:52:00.000-06:00

I know this may come as a bit of a surprise for many, but for all the reasons that the KJV was so far ahead of the other translations in its time, is the same reason that several more modern translations have passed it up now in terms of the overall quality of the translation.

Here's a bit of a run down on what I mean. The KJV comes from an older textual stream. Basically, that means that since the early 1600s we have acquired more manuscripts of the original text that are much better copies. We have manuscripts now that have fewer errors and mistakes made by copyists. And the newer translations use those manuscripts. As a result, those newer translations are going to be a little more accurate. Now, most of the errors are small and insignificant - especially when it comes to doctrine and theology. But there are some that do play a larger role. For example, in the KJV, 1 John 5:7 reads "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This verse is not in any other modern translation. Simply because we have more manuscripts to look at now and none of them have this verse. In fact, there are only two manuscripts in the entire world that have the verse like this. One of them was copied in the 1400s and the other in the 1500s. We now have manuscripts that are 1000 years older (that is 1000 years closer to when it was actually written) that do not have the verse like that. Now, this isn't a slight against the men who translated the KJV. They just didn't have the information that we have now.

Another issue is that the KJV contains many words that are no longer used in the English language - at least not in the English that is spoken in the United States. We just don't use words like peradventure, longsuffering, sleight, circumspectly, etc. (I got these words from reading chapters four and five in Ephesians). Someone might say, well those are Bible words. Huh? What's a Bible word? Actually, they are old English words that people living 400 years ago used. Just because their old doesn't make them more scriptural.

Here's another way to think about it. What's the most important relationship you have on earth? If you're married - it's your spouse. If you're not married, it's probably your parent(s) or a best friend. Now, how would you feel if every time that person, your husband, wife, mom, dad or best friend spoke to you they used words you couldn't understand? It would make communicating more difficult and would eventually strain your relationship. How much more important is the relationship you have with God? The Bible is the way that He talks to you. Why wouldn't you want to do everything in your power to make sure you undertand what He's saying?

The last point regarding the KJV is that there is simply more errors involving the actual translation. That is, mistakes made from ignorance by the translators. Consider the setting of the early 1600s. They had only come out of the Dark Ages about three, maybe four, generations earlier. The Dark Ages was a time when there was no scholarship, no developments of human life or thinking. And biblical languages had not been studied seriously since about 1000 AD. That means that there would have been limited information and knowledge concerning these languages that had not been spoken or read consistently for some time. It simply takes a while for scholarship to build upon previous scholarship so that a knowledge base can grow and develop. And compared to what is available today - their knowledge base in 1600 was extremely weak.

All this makes it sound like I think the KJV is just awful and needs to be put up on the shelf. That's just not the case. It's a beautifully written masterpiece of literature that has a rich tradition and history. And it's a good translation. But for in-depth Bible study there are other versions that more accurately translate the original languages. Unfortunately, many people who grew up on the KJV (and love it today) do not understand its history and limitations. And it's even more unfortunate that many of these people are so dogmatic about the use of the KJV. Even going so far as to say that it's the only true version and that it's inspired. That's sad and unfortunate.

So I'll close this short little series by saying this: use the translation that you feel most comfortable with and can understand without having to get a dictionary. And understand that all translations are going to have issues. But if your interest is in-depth study there are particular translations that are going to offer a stronger rendering of the Greek and Hebrew.

May God bless you as you seek out His will!

Bible Translations

2010-03-03T23:52:00.000-06:00

Ever wondered where all the different translations come from? And why there are so many of them? After all, if the Bible is the Bible (which it is), and there's only one (which there is), how can there possibly so many variations of it? On the surface that one just doesn't click for me. Here's another question: how can I know that one is better than another? We're going to limit everything to English translations as we try to answer these questions.

The beginning of the story obviously goes back to the original letter written by the inspired writer. As the letters were spread around, people would copy them for their personal use or for their ekklesia. All the copying then was done by hand. So if you heard that a friend had a copy of Paul's letter to the Romans, you might borrow it to copy it for yourself. Of course, this continued for more than a thousand years. Many of these copies were somehow preserved and have been found. These are called manuscripts. These are what we have to use when creating or revising a translation of the Bible. The older the translation the better. That is, the manuscript that is closest to the original is thought to be the most accurate because it has been touched by the fewest hands and has the fewer opportunities to have been "messed up" by a copyist.

Jump forward to the early 1500s. A man named William Tyndale the first English Bible directly from the original languages. Then another translation called the Great Bible was created by using much of the work that Tyndale had done. This translation became extremely popular for use in churches throughout England. In fact, Henry VIII made sure that a copy was in every church. Not too long after that, the Geneva Bible was created and because it was slanted towards Reformation doctrine it was popular with the people but not so much with the church. And the first controversy over translations was born.

In 1604 King James brought together 48 scholars to revise a translation that was only a couple of years old. He intended for it to be a neutral Bible (free of any doctrinal references or bias) that everyone could use and be happy with. Coincidentally, many people did not like this new translation so the translators included a preface that tried to explain their good intentions. Ironic huh, that the translators of the KJV now have so many supporters that are so dogmatic for the translation that was intended to put an end to that type of thinkng? Even with the initial animosity working against it, the KJV quickly became the translation for english speaking people.

There were a couple things in particular that set the KJV apart from the other translations of that era. Greek and Hebrew scholarship had excelled greatly. And all the other translations were done by one, or a few men at the most. The KJV was translated by a large committee of 48. This kept bias and doctrinal preferences to a minimum. We'll consider the other side of the KJV and the translations that followed on the next post.

Blessings!

Bible Translations

2010-03-03T11:57:00.003-06:00

So if there are going to be some errors in each of the translations, which should I use? Which is the best? Well, the best version is the one written in the original languages - Hebrew, some Aramaic, and Greek. But since most of us don't have the time to learn these languages, we must use a version that has been translated into the language that we do understand.

There are a lot of English translations available. Some, of course, are more accurate than others. When I am asked that question, "which translation should I use," my answer is always the same - one that you can understand! I have seen too many Christians become discouraged and not read their Bible at all because the vocabularly or style of writing is not understandable to them. How much sense does that make? The worse part of that is, usually those Christians that give up are kids and teens!

Referring to children, Jesus said "but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6). I wonder if this will apply to people who insist on a particular translation that a teen has trouble understanding? I'm not going to take that chance only to find out on judgment day that . . . well, you get my point. So the short answer, use a translation that you are comfortable with and can understand. And encourage others to do the same.

There's the other question still floating out there - which is the most accurate translation of the original language? Probably the most accurate is the New American Standard (NAS). The English Standard (ESV) is extremely accurate as well (and probably a little more readable than the NAS). These are the two best that I have found.

Bible Translations

2010-02-28T15:29:00.003-06:00

The topic of Bible translations seems to have come up with some frequency lately. You might not have ever thought much about which translation you use. Or, you may have given it a lot of thought. Based off of some of the comments I've heard and conversations I've had, there seems to be to be a lot of misinformation, misunderstanding and in some cases just ignorant opinions. (Remember, ignorance is just a lack of information). I think it would be good over the next few posts to share some thoughts on translations. Let's just start with the basics.

There is no perfect translation. It's just not possible for man to perfectly translate God's word from the original languages. There's several reasons for this. Just think about it logically. Languages don't match up exactly. So there may be a Hebrew word that doesn't have an exact equivalent in English. Or likewise, Greek to English. So we have to come as close as possible. It doesn't mean that we don't have an accurate translation - just not a perfect one. We've also got to consider people's inherent bias and opinions. As much as a group of translators may try to avoid it, whenever there is a point of contention or disagreement, someone's opinion or point of view will win out.

Now, since there are no perfect translations, it's not possible to have an inspired or "authorized" translation. I've actually heard it said that "I prefer this or that translation because it's the true authorized and inspired translation". There is just no such thing. The men who wrote the letters that make up the Bible were inspired men. And as a result, what they wrote was inspired. Because of this, each translation of what they wrote is the inspired word of God. Not one moreso than another.

Because it's impossible for any particular translation to be inspired, we've got to understand that there will be mistakes in every translation. Afterall, if man has touched it, it's not going to be perfect. Don't misunderstand and think that we don't have an accurate translation. We have plenty of accurate translations available. Again, we just don't have a perfect translation.

Here's a few thoughts to get us started. I'll share more over the course of the next few posts. Blessings!

Love Is . . .

2010-02-27T18:00:00.004-06:00

I've seen my share of church fights - even a couple that ended up in members of the congregation deciding to pack up their bags. Some of them were just awful situations, but most were just dumb. You're probably thinking of a couple yourself now. Of course, your perspective will always determine who was right and who was wrong. But we can always be sure of this - satan was the only winner. When God's family fights with each other no ever wins. I just wonder if God isn't left standing alone in the middle, as His children walk away from one another to stake their flags in their territory, left with nothing but tears of sorrow? Such a disappointing thought.

You know, even the best or most healthy congregations have problems. I know, kind of a simplistic statement. No church is immune from people going on power trips, being too sensitive or unforgiving or just having one or two folks who seem to be possessed by satan. That's a joke - well, sort of ;-). So since it is the case that even the most healthy congregations have to work through issues, how do they do it? How are they able to fight through satans' attacks more united, more in love with God and still growing strong? There's really no simple answer. But here's a thought for you to consider.

Jesus is pretty clear what He thinks are the two most important rules. Read this scripture with me.

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important? "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." Mark 12:28-31

This kind of gives me the idea that if I would just focus on these two that I would have a good start on living a Godly life that will make my Savior proud of me and able to use me. That's the same case for groups of people - especially the most important group of people - Jesus' body.

You've heard of the love chapter - 1 Corinthians 13. Kind of ironic that the chapter isn't about love at all. It's actually more about a church fighting with each other over who had the greater spiritual gifts. Look at what Paul wrote to them. Only, you're going to notice the scripture is written a little differently from what is inyour Bible. For every occassion where Paul wrote 'love', you'll read 'family.' After all, isn't that what a family is . . . love? Read it with me.

Families are patient, families are kind. Families do not envy, they do not boast, they are not proud. They are not rude, they are not self-seeking, they are not easily angered, they keep no record of wrongs. Families do not delight in evil but rejoice with the truth. Families always protect, always trust, always hope, always perseveres. Families never fail.

Kind of changes the perspective a little? May God bless you and your Church family.

Integrity and Reputation

2010-02-24T13:33:00.002-06:00

Ever thought about the difference between reputation and integrity. Until recently, I hadn't either. We've heard the saying before, "integrity is who you are in the dark," or "when no one is looking." This is something I've heard a whole lot. The other day, I heard a definition of reputation that was completely new to me - it's what other people think of your integrity.

Until I heard that definition I had a much more positive or lofty perception of reputation. I have always given a great deal of emphasis to guarding my reputation. But after giving this some thought, I wonder if I haven't had these two things prioritized the wrong way. I'm not going as far as to say that I placed more importance on my reputation. But the two were pretty much equal footing. I think I was wrong.

Instead, I think I should be placing much more importance on guarding, protecting, elevating and lifting up my integrity. You see, our integrity is much more of a direct reflection on our relationship with God and how much we live according to that relationship. As it turns out, our reputation is really just someone else's opinion of how we live out our relationship with God. Other people's opinion won't get me into heaven. Give me my integrity any day.

That's a tough question . . .

2010-02-23T13:09:00.001-06:00

What about the people who never hear the gospel? That's a question that you've probably asked before. What will happen to the poeple who have literally never heard about Jesus and have never been given an opportunity to become a Christian? Do they get a pass because of their circumstances? Or are they held accountable just like everyone else who has the opportunity the written revelation of God? It seems like I have been asked the question quite a bit recently.Here's a long-winded half-answer.

To hold them accountable would seem incongruent with the nature of who God is. A God full of love, mercy and grace. How then could any God full of love, mercy and grace condemn someone who never had an opportunity to be obedient. This would be like a parent punishing a child for breaking a rule that they never gave. It just doesn't seem fair.

On the other hand, it is inconsistent with what is written in the Bible to assume that God would not hold everyone accountable. For example, 2 Corinthians 5:10 says that we will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ. Also, Luke wrote in Acts 17:30 that God is not overlooking ignorance any longer and that all men should repent.

So what's the answer? Well first, let's guard ourselves against being quick to judge and condemn. It's quite comfortable sitting on this side of the river, behind the damn blocking the rising water. We're safe and unfortunately content. Second, I wonder if Roman 1:18-20 doesn't provide some insight on this question? Paul was essentially acknowledging the division that existed between the gentiles (who had never been given an opportunity to become God's chosen) and the Jews (who had the benefit of being God's chosen). And along with acknowledging the difference, Paul said that God still holds the gentiles accountable because they could have known and worshipped God based solely on what was in His creation. Instead, they had chosen to worship the created instead of the creator.

So does that apply for example to people who live in the deepest regions of the African jungles and have never heard about Jesus? I really don't know for certain. I know what I've read in the NT. And I know that I have been called to teach people about Jesus. So that's what I'm going to do. Am I going to be upset and complain when I get to heaven if there are people getting in who never had a chance to obey the gospel?

Lifting Up the Right People

2010-02-20T13:40:00.000-06:00

I'm as big a sports fan as anyone. But can we please stop glorifying people who have done nothing to deserve our respect and admiration - other than hitting a ball, running faster, jumping higher or shooting a jump shot with greater ease and excellence than we could? The ability to perform our favorite hobby with amazing ability is neat. It's probably worthy of a few of our dollars and some of our free time. But it's certainly not worth our dignity and self-respect. And it's definitely not worth risking the future of our children.

Our kids listen to who and what we talk about. They pay attention to what we spend our time doing. And they realize and understand what we actually value most. Let's stop kidding ourselves by thinking that our kids don't see right through us to our core, to our heart. So instead of lifting up and praising men who have not earned that priviledge, let's lift up men and women who are worthy to watched, heard and copied.

Let's give our kids the chance to hear us praise and lift up the parents who have raised their children to walk after Jesus, the folks who volunteer to teach Bible classes, the elderly couple who faithfully attend worship because they love God and His saints, even though it's physically difficult and the young mother who insists that her kids will be given the opportunity to know God - even if her husband choses not to help her. Let's encourage our kids to watch people who are striving each day to imitate Jesus.

They will be grateful you did.

Perspective Is a Beautiful Thing

2010-02-20T00:24:00.002-06:00

Perspective is a beautiful thing. There's certainly been times when I have lost my perspective and God was there to realign my sight. There's been other times when I was reminded of what Godly perspective looks like without necessarily needing a readjustment. Seeing people, sin, blessings and opportunities as Jesus sees them is probably not possible, at least for me. But every once in a while He gives me a small and brief glimpse through his eys. And I am so grateful for those times, because its then that I am able to regain my perspective.

Today when I looked at my new son for the first time, God gave me a chance to see the world, if only for a moment, through His eyes. I saw a person the same way Jesus sees each of His children who have answered His call - sinless and pure. I saw a blessing that I had received in that little baby. And I saw opportunity to correct my own wrongs by raising one of His children to be better than myself. To give more, to worry less, to serve harder and love stronger than I could have ever hoped to.

I hope you would be able to see the world like I did tonight. May God bless you and keep you in the palm of His hands.

Brody Ryan Schopper

Born to serve and walk with Jesus on 2/19/2010.

A Lesson from the Corinthians

2010-02-17T12:36:00.003-06:00

The church in Corinth had some interesting problems. There were Christians who were struggling with sexual sins like adultery, promiscuity and prostitution. Others faced the demons of alcoholism, fraud, idolatry and even arrogance because of their spiritual giftedness. It's certainly fair to say that culture had infiltrated the church.

It's so easy to draw comparisons to the Corinthian church. That's one place in our Bible that we can always go to feel better about ourselves. Their sinfulness wrote a textbook for how not to do life as a Christian. But are we really that different? How long can we pretend that these issues don't exist today? We may find our idols in different temples. But that doesn't mean that we haven't built plenty of temples to suit our desires. And maybe, after two centuries our sin looks a little different. But it's there.

You know, I wonder if there isn't really just one thing that differentiates us from the Christians that Paul was writing to. And it's not our culture or our sin. I think it's our response to sin. You see, on some of these issues, the Corinthians really didn't know any better. These were a bunch of first generation Christians who were learning on the go. And they hadn't yet learned to live with embarrasment and shame.

We've since mastered these two concepts. Being embarrased or ashamed of sin is not a bad thing. In fact, it's a positive sign that the Holy Spirit is working on you. But living with embarrasment and shame is a very bad thing. Satan uses these to steal away our freedom and strip us of our joy. Embarrasment and shame keeps us from confronting the sin and moving forward. Embarrasment and shame keeps us from asking for help. Embarrasment and shame keeps us chained to that same sin that birthed these horrible feelings.

Paul wrote to the Romans that Jesus only needed to die one death, and that took care of all the sin - forever. And because we are united with Christ we get to live without the awful aftertaste of sin. It's Jesus' blood that washes away that aftertaste. And its God's grace and love that makes it all possible.

Missing in Action

2010-02-16T14:12:00.000-06:00

Calling all Dads and Husbands!!! Where are you?

Think about the demographics of your Christian family who you worship with. How many families can you think of where the father brings his children to worship and bible class while the mother stays at home? Can you think of any? Are there any? Different question. How many families can you think of where the mother brings her children to worship and bible class while the father stays at home? Okay, you can stop counting. Get the point?

What is going on with this? Why are men being taught that its the woman's responsibility to teach and instill faith to the children while they sit watching the game or in their favorite fishing hole? This is not what God planned. This is not what God wants. And I can only imagine the impact that it is having on the lack of spiritual depth that we are witnessing in our kids.

Check out these few verses: Genesis 2:16-17, 3:6, 3:9 and Romans 5:14.

Genesis 2:16-17 - Ever notice that God never spoke to Eve. She wasn't there. I wonder if she had even been created yet?

Genesis 3:6 - Where is Adam when Eve was talking with the serpent? If you're reading from the NIV, you'll notice very clearly that, he was standing right next to her!

Genesis 3:9 - When it says that God called out, "where are you," this was a 2nd person singular masculine pronoun. In other words, he was talking directly to Adam and only to Adam. He didn't say, "where are ya'll", "where are you guys", or anything else that could indicate he was calling for both Adam and Eve. Because he wasn't. He was calling for Adam because he had business with Adam - not Eve. He held Adam responsible for what had just happened and he was going to the source.

Romans 5:14 - Did you see that Eve was never mentioned in this text? In v.12, Paul uses the greek word anthropos. This refers to man, as in human. But when he was ready to get specific - he called out Adam and never mentioned Eve. He said that death (because of sin) started with Adam.

When we consider all this evidence, it gets real clear, real quick that Adam was the first person who sinned, not Eve. And since Genesis doesn't record Adam "doing" anything at all, that sin must have been a sin of ommission. And that was the specific problem. He didn't protect his wife and provide the spiritual leadership that she needed and deserved.

After all these years, it seems that we haven't learned much from Adam. Guys, we're dropping the ball! It's not just your wife's responsibility to make sure that kids are introduced to and taught to live for Jesus Christ - it's your too. Let's start honoring God by giving our wives the spiritual leadership that God desires, by showing our kids how to live a life that imitates Christ (1 Cor. 11:1) and by standing up for your family and protecting them from Satan's attacks!

Do you pray for your children?

2009-11-04T21:37:00.000-06:00

Do you pray for your children? Most people would answer yes. We are usually consistent at joining together the two greatest parts of our life - our faith and our children. Let me offer you a suggestion to take that a step further. Talk to your children about your prayers. Try, this week, to have an intentional conversation with your children about your prayers on their behalf. Ask them what they would like for you to pray about. And do the same with them. Ask them to pray for you and share what it is you need their prayers about. Also, tell them what you have been praying for.

You will be surprised at the blessings you will both receive from this experience. It will deepen your relationship - horizontally and vertically.

Five things a Dad should do every day . . .

2009-11-02T12:52:00.004-06:00

1. HUG your child. Show them with hugs just how much you love them.
2. Tell your child that you LOVE them unconditionally. Explain to them what unconditional love means to you.
3. PRAY with your child. Take time to show them that your relationship with God is the only thing that is more important to you than them or their Mom.
4. PLAY with your child. Spend time with them doing something that they enjoy doing.
5. Let your child see you LOVE on your wife. Show them what a healthy marriage looks like.

Moms, encourage and support your husband to do these things and be the spiritual example and leader that God calls him to be.

Who’s Really Prodigal? pt.1

2009-11-01T16:08:00.000-06:00

One of the most famous scriptures in the Bible is the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15:11-32. This text has been preached on, studied over and shared – probably as much as any other in the Bible. Most often, we approach this story from the perspective of the wayward son who sinned against the father and returned home to open and loving arms. That’s accurate. But I don’t think it’s the complete message that Jesus was sending to his original audience.
So who was the original audience? It was the Pharisees and the Scribes. The same guys who thought they had the market on religion and relationships with God. So Jesus told them a story to set them straight. Look first at why Jesus told them this parable. They had a problem with Jesus eating and fellowshipping with sinners and tax collectors - the unmentionables of that society. They were defining what and who a sinner was (on their own terms). Jesus had a problem with this. So he told them a story about TWO brothers and their father. Look at how Jesus began the story in v.11. He said, “A man had two sons.” From the beginning this was about both of the man’s sons. Not just the one who we most often focus on. Jesus goes on to highlight the differences in the SIN of the brothers.

The first brother was as disrespectful to his father as anyone could be in that culture. For a son to ask for his inheritance was to tell the father that he no longer existed and no longer wanted to be considered a member of his family – the ultimate disrespect. Had a son actually done that, he would have been kicked out with no questions asked, and no chance of a return. The Pharisees and Scribes would have certainly understood who the bad guy of the story was. In their eyes, a good Jewish father would NEVER have let that boy back into the family. So to say that he was welcomed back with a party – no way!

Webster’s dictionary defines prodigal as abundant, luxurious and extravagant spending. You tell me who was more prodigal – the son who took his inheritance and wasted in on sinful living? Or the father who welcomed that sinful son back into the family by running to meet him (not making him walk all the way in shame), bringing him sandals for his feet, putting the families’ signet ring on his hand, giving him his best robe, killing a calf (which was meant to feed the entire family) and then throwing an extravagant celebration for everyone to attend?

I’m so glad that my Father is a prodigal Father. He lavishly covers with me His Compassionate Love, His Mercy, His Riches, His Blessings and most importantly – His Reward and Promise.

Vision Casting: Simple Rhetoric or Responsible Leadership

2009-10-31T01:17:00.001-05:00

What's a vision? Is it just a fancy rhetorical catch-phrase or is it a sign of responsible leadership? Or, could it be both? First of all, in the context of organizational (or in this case, congregational) leadership, a vision is an idea, a picture, a dream, a visual plan of what you want your congregation to look like. In other words, a vision is what appears when you allow your thoughts to take to you to grandoise, best-case-scenario places.

Assuming you understand and can agree with that definition - is it simplistic and unnecessary rhetoric or a sign of responsible and cultivation leadership? My opinion, probably a little rhetorical and a lot responsible.

Does your congregation have a vision? If it does, do you talk about it frequently? Do your leaders pray about it? If you don't have a stated and shared vision, why not? Do your Elders not see it as an important part of the growth process? If you don't have a clear picture of how you want your Church to look, then what's the point of what you're doing now? What does it mean if you're not working towards an intended consequence?

Having a solid vision statement is the first of a four step growth plan. Following the vision statement is an explicit plan of mission or purpose. Next come umbrella goals then driver goals.

Here's a common example of not having a clearly defined vision. Some congregations have continued the tradition of having annual or bi-annual gospel meetings. Most do it out of tradition and not because it is part of the growth plan. So as a result, each year the congregations pass around the same few preachers and have (in their own judgment) unsuccessful meetings - which is generally determined by responses and attendance. Why? Mostly because there is not a strategically defined vision - or a comprehensive growth plan. So the Elders go with what they know, what they are comfortable with - which ends up being what they have always done.

When you're not sure how you want the congregation to look, how will you know if you're there?

Considering Romans 14

2009-10-29T13:01:00.004-05:00

Click on the picture for a readable image.

Romans 14 is such a tough chapter. Not really tough to understand, but tough to do. It seems that the summary verse is 13. It says, "Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." What's so hard about that? Have you struggled with fulfilling this scripture? Have you been on the other end of someone else struggling to fulfill this scripture? We do this in the church - too often. Instead of considering ways to encourage and help strengthen our "weaker" brothers we expect them to rise to our level of spiritual maturity. And when they don't, we isolate, alienate and marginalize them.

Try to be objective for a moment and consider whether or not you are guilty of this. Think about this question as a litmus test for yourself - do I doctrinalize issues that are were not meant to be doctrinal? This seems to be the starting block for much of the issues we have. We read issues, contexts and opinions into scripture - when in fact it does not belong. This was the issue that came up in Acts with the Jewish brethren who insisted that their gentile brothers ought to meet their traditions before they could be accepted into the body. That was wrong. So why do we do the same thing? Why do we carry on our traditions, call them scriptural or doctrinal and insist that others follow us down this road?

It's past time for us to come together under the umbrella of scriptural unity. Understanding that we will not always agree, we can not continue to doctrinalize issues that make us uncomfortable and expect to be able to call names because people don't follow "our" doctrine.

Tested in Wal-Mart

2009-10-24T23:46:00.001-05:00

Preachers have got to have their 'A' games at all times. I mean, we're never off work. Yesterday, I was in Wal-Mart and I ran into a great lady that we worship with. After we said hello, she says "Jeremy, I've already talked with one of the elders, but I need to ask you a question." Okay, anytime a person starts with, "I've talked with one of the elders," there's a 50/50 shot at it being a not-so-fun conversation. This one turned out okay. She had a textual question for me. Whew, sigh of relief. Then she stumped me.

"What was the name of the angel cast out of heaven?" I knew what it wasn't. And I felt like I had a good guess, but I told her she'd have to wait until Sunday for the answer. By the way, it's in Isaiah 14.

Jeremy

It's a eu⋅phe⋅mism!

2009-10-23T14:45:00.002-05:00

OMG! (oh my god)

Freakin', Frickin or Friggin' (depending on your preference)

What the crap!?

These are a few popular euphemisms that I've seen in text messages and hear from folks (especially teens) all the time. Here's the the definition listed at dictionary.com: the substitution of a mild, indirect or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh or blunt.

Do you say any of these words? When you read them, don't they seem obnoxious or at least a little tacky or uncouth? Have you ever given thought to what you're saying - or allowing your kids to say? You may as well be swearing. When we use these words, everyone knows what we mean. We choose not to swear because it's wrong - because it's a sin. So why would we say these words? If you don't want your kids saying the "real" words, do you really want them saying these?

Something to think about.

Jeremy

Raising Faithful Kids

2009-10-23T13:28:00.005-05:00

As a Christian who's raising kids, what are your biggest concerns? What do you worry about most when it comes to your kids and faith or your kids and God? I recently had an aha moment and came to the realization that my kids are growing up. I've got one in school now. Another will be in school next year, with others heading in that direction. My two oldest have been asking more questions about faith, religion, etc. and that has put this put this topic at the front of the line for me. Which is really where it should have been in the first place.

Here's my two main concerns, thoughts, worries (not really sure how to label it yet). What can I do to keep my kids from rebelling against God when they become teens? We've all seen it happen. Great family, great parents, doing the right things, and yet when their child becomes a teen - the spiritual train wreck happens. What did those parents do? Was it them that at all? Could they have done something differently? Are there any consistent factors that I can point to and learn from?

The second concern I have is to help my kids acquire and develop a faith that they have chosen before they leave for college. I don't want my kids being spiritual giants, youth group leaders, etc. if all the while they don't understand, appreciate and truly own their faith and take personal responsibility for their relationship with God.

Have you gone through this? Do you have some insight you could share? After giving this more thought the past several months, here's a few thoughts thoughts I have.

1. Be intentional. Don't go through the motions and expect that everything will be fine, just because you are going through the "right" motions. What goals do you have for your kids? What values are you going to try to impress on your kids? What are you going to do to fulfill this? Be specific and be intentional.

2. Teach them that their religion, spirituality, faith, etc. is not based, or found in "going to church." Their spiritual health and well-being is based entirely on their relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Everything else is either secondary or simply an indicator of the strenghth of that relationship.

3. Make sure they know that just because I'm a preacher or an adult that I am not a "Spiritual Superman." Although I may not share all of them, I've got to make sure they understand I am just like them with regard to sin, temptation, bad decisions, struggles and successes - all rolled into one. I think this earns me more creditability and respect. Those are two checks I can cash when they are teens.

What do you think? Blessings.

Jeremy

Uncomfortable Peter

2009-10-20T12:08:00.011-05:00

Notice Peter's situation in Acts chapter 10. Look at the circumstances that would have made him uncomfortable. The close of chapter 9 has Peter staying at the home of a tanner. We think, so what? What does it matter where he stayed? Well, here's something you may not know about a tanner in the first century. A tanner was a leather worker - they made stuff with leather. And back then, they didn't buy the leather then turn it into purses, sandals and jackets. They had it from start to finish. Think bloody, nasty, smelly, etc. The Jews didn't think much of them because of this. That's understandable because the Jews were so interested in cleanliness.

Then after God had Peter staying with a tanner, he sent him to a gentile's home! That never happened. A good Jew might let a gentile stay in his house if he needed to, but never the opposite. This was a social perception issue and a religious issue - the cleanliness thing again. In a matter of two days, Peter went from uncomfortable to really uncomfortable. Why? For what? You know why. Because he was called to a higher purpose. What would have happened if Peter had refused to leave his comfort zone. What if he said no thanks and never went? How many souls did Peter impact because he chose the Lord over himself?

How comfortable are you?

A Work In Progress

2009-10-19T00:06:00.004-05:00

I've been preaching a mini-series in Jonah and have really grown through this study. There are some great and deep theological lessons in this text. I'm intrigued by Jonah's response in the belly of the fish and God's response to him. Even when he "looked towards God," he wasn't buying God's theology. Yet, in spite of the tension and conflict that still existed - God chose to use Jonah. Unlike Jonah, I don't have the courage to blatantly disagree with God (though I do disobey Him on a fairly regular basis). And even in my sinful state, He still chooses to use me. I've only recently realized that He does this for my benefit. Like Jonah, I am a work in progress.

Somtimes All We've Got is . . .

2009-10-17T01:57:00.006-05:00

Prayer.

I've walked through valleys when it seemed that the mountains were closing in, and every decision was the wrong one. Ever felt like that?

I've tried to logically think through the situation, making a list of pros and cons and even asking for advice. But in the end, all the answers led me to consequences that I was trying to avoid. Ever experienced that?

It's often a slow and sometimes painful experience. That is, getting to where God is standing and patiently waiting for me to meet Him at. But in the end, no matter how long it takes, I always end up on my knees in prayer. Ever tried that?

Purpose of Gospel Temptation accounts?

2009-10-16T23:11:00.004-05:00

Hebrews 4:15 says, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin."

This verse is clear. During his lifetime, Jesus went through every type or form of sin that we go through. Since that's the case, what was the purpose of the three temptations documented in the gospels? It certainly couldn't have been to fulfill this verse. In the gospel accounts of the three temptations, Jesus is essentially tempted with the primary typologies of sin - the pride of life, lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes (1 John 2:16). But not everything that we are tempted with - that happened throughout the course of his life.

So what was the purpose? If he did not endure that experience for us, then perhaps God put that trial in his life for his personal preparation? Luke 4:1 says that Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness. Clearly, God put Jesus in that position. The context gives us the answer to the question. This was the beginning of his public ministry. And it was God's final test of preparation for Jesus.

God Has No Grandchildren

2009-10-14T12:22:00.002-05:00

God had no grandchildren only children. You can't ride the coatails of your parents faith!

My friend Dan Wheeler posted this on Facebook today. I love it! We have all got to find, establish and own our faith. 2nd hand clothes may work fine. But 2nd hand faith will fall apart. Whose faith do you own?

Have a great day!

Thank God for Family

2009-10-09T21:04:00.002-05:00

Not sure if you can relate to this or not, but having four young children really puts a damper on individual time with your spouse. In fact, damper probably doesn't really describe it. We get a few dates each year. And they all revolve around the times when my sister is visiting from Harding. The first thing she does, after starting her laundry;-), is watch our children so that we can go out on a date. I hope we tell her 'thank you' and "we appreciate you' enough. We often joke that she watches the kids to pay for my water bill. But I know that she loves us, loves our kids, and loves to help us out.

You know, I hope that I think of others like she does. I hope that people consider me a blessing in their life. Have you been a blessing to someone this week?

God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

2009-10-05T12:14:00.003-05:00

You've heard that saying before; and I've even seen it on some t-shirts. It sounds nice, and I suppose there's some truth to it. But this slogan is representative of a mindset that has caused a lot of trouble in and for the Church. Specifically, in terms of the overall decline of the Church, it's contributed by negatively impacting the faith of 'churched' kids. This thought process essentially promotes an ignorant faith mentality.

For two consecutive generations we've failed to teach our kids to ask 'why' when it comes to their faith. Instead, we've insisted that they continue with, and not question, traditions and teachings that have been established over time. And as a result, we lament the fact that our kids don't know the Bible (like previous generations) - and they don't. We grumble at the fact that they have a greater interest in fun than their faith - and for the most part they do. Whose fault is that? More importantly, how can that be fixed? And whose responsibility is it to work towards fixing it?

The past two generations place a higher importance on transparency and authenticity than previous generations did. Said another way, where older generations were more obedient, recent generations are more inquisitive. To ignore this reality displays a great deal of ignorance and foolishness, and as we are experiencing the consequences are severe. We've insisted that our kids accept our faith and religious practices without question. At best that's illogical; and at worst, its unscriptural.

If Christ's body is going to continue to flourish, grow and prosper, we must teach our kids that it's not only okay to ask why, but it's their responsibility. And we have to be consistent in the demonstration of our faith. That means that we don't do things just because that's they way we've always done them. We do things because that's pattern and command we have from the NT. And when our sacred cows are challenged we have to be able to defend them with concrete scripture (not quotes from men) and be willing to give them up for our kids sake if we can't defend with them with scripture.

When our faith and religion is truly transparent and authentic to our kids (and our practice matches our words) we'll start to see a change - and the Church will start to grow again. Until then . . .

Theology 101

2009-10-02T11:32:00.002-05:00

If you knew that you were going to have just one chance at telling someone about Jesus, what scripture would you use? Ever think about Romans 3:23-25? Many years ago Jimmy Allen (Professor at Harding) brought this scripture to life for me. Check it out.

23For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed.

We could probably spread it out and include vs. 21-26. But for me, these three verses are Theology 101 and speak right to my heart. Paul lays it all out (step-by-step for slow folks like me) in a plain and succinct manner. Here's the root of the theological problem: I am a sinner and because of my sin I'm not able to reach God on my own. BUT, because of His grace and mercy, he sent Jesus so that I could have a relationship with Him. When Jesus died on the cross, He became the place where I could meet God and have a direct line of connection - that's available all the time. That's powerful. That's life-changing, never-be-the-same-again stuff. Next time you have a chance to talk with someone about your faith, try sharing this scripture.

Is the Record Player Broken?

2009-09-29T15:56:00.003-05:00

I've recently given some thought to how preachers go about selecting the topics and passages that they will preach on - mostly because this is a challenge and struggle for me. Because I'm only preaching a few times a month, I want to make sure that I make every one of them count. That's sounds a little strange, if I preach the Bible wouldn't it automatically count? Yes, but . . . somtimes there is a specific need in the congregation. Sometimes that need exists at a macro level; and other times there is a specific issue or challenge that needs to be dealt with. A good preacher will understand, appreciate and respond to those needs in a manner that brings glory to God and feeds the flock.

So back to the question: how do some preachers go about selecting the text or topic that they will preach on? Sometimes I wonder if there isn't selfish motivations. For example, preaching on a topic or sacred cow that the preacher knows will win favor with the congregation. How about consistently or constantly preaching on their own personal soapbox issues (that's what blogs are for ;-). Neither really bring glory to God or serve the church effectively. Yet, how often do we hear the same sermons over and over again and not raise an eyebrow because its "scriptural"? Perhaps our standards are bit low?

Jesus or Snoop Dog?

2009-09-25T22:43:00.008-05:00

Okay, I'm pushing it with the title. I wanted to get your attention. But check this out. Earlier today while I was lost in the great metropolis of Jasper, Alabama, I ended up in a residential area. As I was turning around I noticed a couple of white statues sitting in a yard. That's not uncommon - people often display icons like depictions of angels, Jesus, etc. But these two were different. Both of the faces had been painted black (actually dark brown).

When I looked back a second time, I didn't realize it was supposed to be Jesus (even though it was clothed in a white robe which I guess is what Jesus always wore?) because it looked just like the entertainer Snoop Dog. I'm not kidding - it looked just like him. Long curly hair with a touch of jerry curyl, skinny face and a goatee. It was hilarious. Once I realized that it was supposed to be Jesus I couldn't stop laughing. It looked so funny.

Now, I don't know what Jesus actually looked like. I could make an educated guess that, based on his heritage and where he lived, he probably had dark, olive skin color and "darker" hair. But you know what, it really doesn't matter to me. He could have been a black man. It doesn't affect my faith in Him or my salvation through Him at all. But because I'm a preacher (and could find an illustration in a pitch black empty room) I immediately starting thinking about why people try to make Jesus out to be a person that they can be comfortable with - even if it doesn't match up to what the Bible says He is? Does that make sense?

The person who owned those statues is obviously a black man or woman and is more comfortable thinking of Jesus as a black man. I think about the pictures of Jesus I have seen, like the one on the cover of our big family bible that has been handed down through a couple of generations. It's a nice looking pale white guy with a neatly trimmed beard. The artist who painted it had a definitive picture of what he thought Jesus should look like.

We do this all the time. We try to alter who He is, what He did and what He said so that it can fit into the life that we want to live. I wonder how that makes him feel now? When we read some of the things he said and did we're left feeling loved and comforted. And at other times we read things that leave us feeling guilty, ashamed or convicted. I hope all of those feelings will lead us to make good decisions to change our lives - and not to change Him, His life or His teachings.

By the way, the angel looked just like Scooby Doo - i'm not kidding. And once I'm done preparing my sermon tomorrow my only goal for the day is to find that house again and get a picture!

. . . For Works of Service

2009-09-15T11:24:00.004-05:00

Each time I read Ephesians 4:11-12, I am reminded that there are really two types of leadership in the church. Those who lead by trying to do it all themselves. And those who lead by trying to enable and empower the people who are being led. That's what this scripture is about. And when I look around at congregations that are growing, I notice that they are committed to this practice of leadership.

The bible says here that Jesus has commissioned us to be pastors, teachers and evangelists to prepare God's people for works of service. By default, this scripture gives two commands. First, all of God's people are to be working by serving. And second, for those of us that bear the responsibility as a pastor or teacher or evangelist - we are supposed to be preparing God's people to be the best servants they can be. Simply speaking, are you fulfilling your responsibility? If not, then why? Are you being given opportunities to serve? Have you been challenged to discover your spiritual gifts and to put them to use? Leaders, are you wearing the burden of doing everything yourself?

Here's the problem that occurs in congregations where people are not challenged to step up, discover their strengths and glorify God by serving with them: people become stale and cold; and their faith grows old. So instead of looking for opportunities to serve others, they "come to church" sit in their seat and wait on someone to serve them. Then both the shepherds and ministers can't figure out why the church isn't growing and why everyone seems to be going through the motions.

It's time for all of us to look in the mirror.

Leadership Redefined

2009-09-04T15:37:00.000-05:00

John 13:1-20

If I were to ask you what this scripture is about, you would probably answer humility. If that’s your first response then you’re right. It’s definitely teaching about humility. But, read in the context of the circumstances, it’s about something even greater. Look at v.7, “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter." The disciples were still thinking about Jesus, His plan, His mission and His purpose from the wrong perspective. They thought of him as the anointed one; the Messiah who had come to earth to reestablish the old earthly kingdom that had been taken away, and to sit on David’s earthly throne. They were wrong. And that’s why Jesus told them that they wouldn’t understand what he was doing until later – as in after his resurrection.

Jesus wasn’t just teaching them about being humble and living with humility. It goes much deeper. Jesus was teaching them a lesson that they would need to carry in their hearts as they set out to grow and lead the Church. You see, they completely misunderstood leadership. They thought it was about being more holy, more worthy, more powerful – as they defined those terms. But Jesus completely re-wrote the book. By taking off his robe, taking a towel and kneeling down before his servants and washing the dirt off their feet, he redefined leadership. Jesus taught them that a person’s holiness is acquired through what the Father has done for them – not what they had done on their own; that a person’s worthiness is not defined by who you are, but instead by whose you are; and that a person’s power is found not in their own strength, but in the strength of the one they put their faith in.

Consider the lyrics to this song – Make Me a Servant. Consider saying them as a prayer to God. What a powerful prayer that would be!

Make me a servant
Lord, make me like You
For You are a servant
Make me one, too
Make me a servant
Do what You must do
To make me a servant
Lord make me like You

To love my brother
To serve like You do
I humble my spirit
I bow before You
And through my service
I'll be just like You
So make me a servant
Lord make me like You

Open my hands, Lord
And teach me to share
Open my heart,
Teach me to care
Service to others
Is service to You
So make me a servant
Make me like You

Leadership and Growth

2009-09-04T09:56:00.006-05:00

No doubt about it, there is a direct correlation between leadership and a congregation's growth. Think of some of the congregations that you are familiar with. What about the one where you attend. Is the church growing? If it is - why is it growing? Can you pinpoint and narrow down to a few factors, exactly what is causing the growth? I think you probably can. In fact, if you keep narrowing it down and peeling back the layers you'll probably end up at leadership. Specifically, the leadership from the Shepherds. Sure, you may have a great preacher who draws people in. Or you could be in a great location that is real convenient for many people and is geographically in the middle of an area that is experiencing population growth. But those are just surface issues. We both know that growth and decline can, and have, occurred regardless of those factors.

However, you will not find scriptural, healthy and sustained growth from a congregation that does not have scriptural and healthy Shepherds guiding and leading towards that growth. It just won't happen. So, if most churches are not growing - does that mean that most churches have unhealthy and unscriptural Shepherds? Perhaps. It has definitely been that case that men are serving in that capacity when God has not truly qualified or called them. Or (probably just as common) when they have grown out of their qualification.

However naive, I'd like to think that's not the answer for the majority of congregations. Instead, a more likely answer is that there are capable, qualified, Godly men who have been charged with a responsibility, role and task that they don't truly understand and are prepared to carry out. Here's what I mean: over time, the Elderships of many congregations have degeneratively shrunken into positions of glorified deacons. Where they feel a need to step in and be hands-on with too many different ministries and activities of the church. When this happens, they lose sight of the responsibilities that God has for them. So, instead of spending a couple of evenings each week checking on families and visiting peoples homes, they are spending those evenings doing work that a deacon should be addressing.

Or, even worse, groups of Shepherds have evolved into a team of managers running a non-profit business. This is not what God intended; and it's often a symptom of control problems. This often turns into a situation where no money is spent and no decisions are made unless the Elders are first consulted and have given their blessing. If the Shepherd are spending their time in this capacity, then there is little time left to spend on shepherding the flock.

Both of these mistakes are too common and are great vehicles that satan uses to set up shop in the middle of congregations. Shepherds (both individually and collectively) need to do a self-evaluation; and assess whether their time is being spent well. And whether or not they are effectively fullfilling the role that God has called them to. When Shepherds are shepherding - churches are usually growing.

A Godly Example

2009-08-31T09:18:00.004-05:00

I've had a night and a little bit of a morning to reflect on yesterday's events. No doubt about it, yesterday was a BIG day for the Curry church of Christ. Yesterday, one of our Shepherds (who has been guiding us for longer than I know) announced that he was stepping down from that position. At first, I was a little surprised and a little worried for the congregation. But it didn't take too long for my thoughts to switch over where they need to be - on my former shepherd and his wife.

I love that godly couple more than they'll ever know. And they have had more of an impact on my life than what they could ever imagine. He has been example for me of what a Christian husband, father, businessman, and church leader should look like - he has shown me by letting me watch is life. So once I got done worrying about myself and the congregation, I starting thinking about these two wonderful people. And then I started praying for them. I am so blessed to have that kind of an example of humility, strength and courage all wrapped up in one man.

By stepping down he put his family and the church first. He understood that, for whatever the specific reasons, that he was not at point in life that he felt he should be leading the church in that capacity. I have known of too many others in his position that made the wrong decision and remained with the Eldership for the wrong reasons, or with only half their heart invested in it. He had the courage and humility not to do that.

Let's not forget that a title is something you take on. But leadership is a role that it given to you by the very people who are following your lead. He may not be wearing a specific title - but I'll still be following close behind him.

I love you guys.

Exposure Youth Camp

2009-08-30T22:04:00.003-05:00

Check out the promo video for Exposure! It's already September. December will be here soon!

Are we acting like the Jews?

2009-08-27T21:27:00.008-05:00

So what's causing our congregations to stop growing and as a result, start dying (or at least letting atrophy take hold)? I wonder if a little bit of it is because we're acting like the Jewish Christians described in Acts. Check out these scriptures for yourself.

Acts 10:1-22; 34-35 It took a vision from God and three men sent to get him before Peter would consider preaching to a gentile.

Acts 11:1-3 When word got back to Jerusalem (where all the Jewish Church leaders were) that Peter had preached to (and ate with) Cornelius they demanded an explanation. So Peter had to explain to them about his vision and how it was God who sent him to do it.

Acts 11:19-22 This scripture describes how the Jewish Christians who had fled Jerusalem after Stephen was stoned had only shared the gospel with other Jews. But there was an exception. A few men were preaching to the Gentiles also. And when the folks in Jerusalem found out, they sent Barnabas up to Antioch to investigate the situation.

Now, I don't think we blatantly do what they did. These Jewish Christians were purposefully prejudiced against the Gentiles. And as a result, they were willing to "allow" or "accept" that the Gentiles were being converted - but it had to be done on their terms. More specifically, they had to become Jews (conversion) first, then they would be deemed acceptable for conversion. I don't know if we can paint with a real broad brush on this, but I don't think we'd be completely wrong in saying that some congregations are a little guilty of this.

For example, we are certainly guilty of confusing habit, tradition and custom for scripture - there's no denying that. And when our habits, traditions and customs are disrupted, we get disrupted. That's not inherently wrong. That is, there's nothing wrong with customs and traditions. But it is wrong for customs or traditions to be placed at a greater importance than people and their souls. Or, like the Jewish Christians did with circumcision, require people to accept our opinions, before we accept them. That's not right, and it alienates people. And when people are alienated they leave or don't come back. That's one reason for a lack of growth.

What do you think?

Church Growth in Walker County

2009-08-25T10:10:00.006-05:00

Okay, so here's recommitment number 1. No more lay offs for more than a few days. Hopefully I won't need another recommitment. I've already got enough of those going. I think I'm on number 4 with my promise to myself that I'll start working out again and get back in shape. :-) Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one in that boat.

Last month I introduced a new topic that I want to get into a little - the state of the Church. Are we growing? Are we not growing? Why are some congregations able to grow and others are dying? Here we go . . .

Since I've been in Jasper, I've heard three different comments (from three different people) that essentially stated that the church in Walker County is dying and they don't know why. I haven't done any research on this (though it probably would be a good study). But judging soley from comments made people who have been around a while and checking old bulletins from a few congregations, I can tell that it is probably true that the church "numbers" are in decline. In fact, for a few of the congregations the numbers are down substantially.

This is a good moment for pause. How do you define a dying church? How do you look at a particular congregations and say, "that congregation is dying," or "that congregation is growing?" Here's my answer, if there isn't consistent numberical growth, then it's dying. That's sounds a little harsh, but once a congregation stops growing it's only a matter of time before it begins declining. And it should really be pointed out that when our own kids make the decision to become a Christian, that really isn't growth in this sense. To me that seems more like maintaining.

So back to the thought. If the church in Walker County is dying, then why? Starting with the next post, I am going to spend a little time trying to answer this question. I welcome your comments. I think a discussion on this topic is well past due and well worth the time. If you are a regular reader, please encourage your friends to check us out. I would love to have input from as many people as possible. I look forward to your comments.

The Church

2009-07-10T21:07:00.004-05:00

Most of the posts on this blog are generally devotionally focused. I think that means that I write with the hope of you being drawn closer to God or being challenged to think more critically about your relationship with God. Here's a litle different post.

Where do you think the Church is heading? What direction? Is it a positive direction? A negative direction? Do you see the Church growing? Do you see the Church in decline? For the individual congregations that are experiencing growth - what's causing it? What does that say about the spiritual and religious landscape of our society?

These are a few of the many questions that have been on my mind for some time. I have taken a lot of time to really discover my beliefs and thoughts on these questions. And I'm going to try and answer them over the course of the next few weeks.

Who Am I? Who Are You?

2009-07-09T10:12:00.004-05:00

I love this scripture! It's such a great encouragement to me. Check it out.

10"Therefore, come now, and I will send you to Pharaoh, so that you may bring My people, the sons of Israel, out of Egypt." 11But Moses said to God, "Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt?" 12And He said, "Certainly I will be with you, and this shall be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain." 13Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?" 14God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

It's easy to see why this verse is so encouraging to someone who has a heart to serve the Lord, but who sometimes gets lost in self-doubt. That's a perfect description for me. Deep down in my heart I feel like God has a plan for me. But sometimes I am so scared to jump out there and go for it. But every time I read this scripture it's a great reminder for me that the "I AM" has got my back.

On a personal level, there's really not much difference between Moses and me, or you. He was a regular guy with great leadership skills, a ton of potential and almost as much self-doubt. The way that I strive to be like him is that he fought through his apprenhension, his fear, his doubt and he just got after it. That doesn't mean he didn't go back to the great "I AM" every now and then for a pep talk. But he stayed in the game and he allowed God to use him. I hope people can say that about me. What about you?

Anger Poured Out

2009-07-02T22:53:00.010-05:00

I had the chance to speak at the 6th Avenue congregation this week. This was the home congregation for Gus Nichols. It was really kind of neat to speak from the same pulpit that such a great and impactful preacher called his own for so many years. In case you aren't familiar with Gus Nichols, he was really instrumental in the growth of the church in the early and mid twentieth century. He started countless numbers of congregations in the western half of Alabama. He's really left a great legacy, particularly in this area.

I was asked to speak on James 1:19-20 - about being slow to wrath. I had never preached on this text before; and preparing this lesson on anger was a little more challenging that what I anticipated. But it was really benefical for me. Hopefully, the family there got something out of it as well. I want to share just a little of what I studied. Hopefully, you can take something from it.

Anger is one of those sins that really hits close to home with most everyone. I've known a few people in my life who I don't think ever struggled with anger - but for most of us, this is a common vice. There's a verse in Ephesians that people go to, to try and assuage their conscience when it comes to their anger. You may be familiar with it too. It's Ephesians 4:26 and it says

Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger.

This quote, along with a few references to Jesus' anger with the Pharisees (Mark 3:5; et.al.) are missused and misapplied so much. Grab your Bible and check out Mark 3:5 and look specifically at what got Jesus angry. And then check out the Romans 1:18 and 2:8 where it talks about God's wrath.

Now just think to yourself, are the things that get you going the same type of things that got Jesus and the Lord worked up? Are they in the same category with what God's wrath is going up against? Probably not. Jesus was angry with the Pharisees because they had a hard heart. And God's wrath has been and will be poured out on all sin. Those hardly match up with idiot drivers, kids that don't listen, an incompetent boss or an umpire that you're convinced is cheating your kid.

It's really kind of humbling when you think of it in that context. So does that mean that you're sinning if you get angry for any reason other than a reaction to sin? I honestly don't know the answer to that. But I do know that James 1:19-20 says to be slow to wrath (or anger) because anger does not bring about the righteousness of God. After studying verses 18-21, here's what I came to realize about anger: it does not bring me closer to God, it does not solve the issue that instigated it, it does rob me of the fullness and the joy that I am supposed to experience (v.4)and finally, it does not take away the pain that caused it in the first place. Only Jesus can do those things.

God bless you!

What does your letter say?

2009-06-20T21:49:00.002-05:00

One of my favorite scriptures is the first three verses of 2 Corinthians. Check it out.

1 Are we beginning to praise ourselves again? Are we like others, who need to bring you letters of recommendation, or who ask you to write such letters on their behalf? Surely not! 2 The only letter of recommendation we need is you yourselves. Your lives are a letter written in our[a] hearts; everyone can read it and recognize our good work among you. 3 Clearly, you are a letter from Christ showing the result of our ministry among you. This “letter” is written not with pen and ink, but with the Spirit of the living God. It is carved not on tablets of stone, but on human hearts.

This scripture is so neat in that it reveals two messages to us. Do you realize that (if you have accepted Christ as your Savior) you are living out someone else's letter? Everything you do and don't do, and everything you say and don't say reflects back on someone. Paul said that the Christians in Corinth were his letter and that their lives were the only recommendation that he needed. What type of recommendation letter are you writing? By your actions today, what did you write? What about this past week - what have you written?

There's certainly here to think about. I think probably the most important letter we write is the one we write to Jesus. With our life we are in the process of writing a letter to Jesus. And with our choices and decisions we pen our letter. What are you telling Him?

God Bless!

Why?

2009-06-05T00:53:00.004-05:00

Let me ask you a question - an onion question. Huh? What's an onion guestion? Glad you asked. An onion question is a question where the answer never seems to stop. The more you pull back layers, the deeper you get into the answer, the better and more fulfilling it becomes. This reminds me of the movie "Shrek," where Shrek and Donkey are on their way to rescue the princess and the onion topic comes up - "Ogres are like onions!"

So here's the question: when it comes to faith, religion, spirituality, the Bible, why do you believe what you believe? Where do you get your frame of reference? Where do you get your conclusions? Where do you get your answers to questions? I LOVE to ask "why?" when I am having a spiritually-based conversation with a student or am teaching in a class. I could ask why four or five times in a row. And it's so much fun for me to see students pull back the layers and slowly discover their own faith.

Too often we let ourselves (and our kids) own a faith that isn't theirs. We use rhetoric that we're comfortable with to teach others our beliefs and we seem to miss the step where we help them to own the beliefs for their self. I think this, more than anything else, is the reason that we lose "churched" kids when the get older - and especially when they go off to college, move out, etc.

So next time you're sitting in a bible class and the teacher says something you've heard a hundred times (or more) ask why. Then keep asking and answering "why" another three or four times and you'll start to get to center of the onion.

God Loves You!

Does God have confidence in your family?

2009-05-27T10:46:00.004-05:00

Genesis 18:19 reads, "For I have know him, so that he will command his children and household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment, that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which He has spoken about him."

This is a really neat verse. It is a powerful statement about the Abraham's faith in general; and God's faith in Abraham specifically. In this passage God had no problem putting all his eggs in one basket so to speak. He made a statement of fact when He said that He knows that Abraham will command his children and household after him and that they will keep the way of the Lord.

This got me thinking, does God have that same type of faith in me? I think he probably hopes great things for me as a father and husband. But I'm not sure if He were referring to me that he could make the same statement (that He did about Abraham). That's actually a little embarrassing. Usually, I do a good job. And I am pretty consistent. But it's those times when I get frustrated too easily. Or those times when I am too tired to sit down and read the Bible to my kids. Or, here's one you might relate to, when I get frustrated when I'm driving. My kids are always watching - and learning - from everything I do and everything I don't do.

What about you? What would God say about your family? Do you think He KNOWS that your family will follow Him and all His ways? This verse sure is a great reminder of our responsibilities. Do yourself two favors: even if you answered yes to the previous verse, think of three things you could start doing better. It could be your families' church attendance. It could be praying before you eat. It could be having better control over some personal sin issues in your life. It could be reevaluating some parenting practices that you have been thinking about. It could be modeling personal spiritual disciplines for your children - like reading your Bible and personal prayer time.

Here's the second favor I hope that you would do for yourself: share this list with your spouse AND your children. Talk about it with them. Believe me when I say that I know how difficult this idea is. But you would be surprised at just how rewarding it could be.

May God bless you and your family. Amen.

Temptation - The Devil's Playground, pt.4

2009-05-19T02:00:00.007-05:00

Well, it's only been about three weeks since the last post. It's about time I get back on here. You ever feel busy? Busy like three weeks go by and you don't realize it? Anyway - here we go with the fourth and final post on this little series on how the devil works to attack us and what we can do to combat his efforts. No recap needed - so let's get right to it.

This is the good news edition. We've heard what the devil does - now here's what we can do. First, (prepare yourself because you're about to get blessed with a deep theological truth) know your specific challenges. Yep, that's the first step. Know what you struggle with. We all have natural tendencies that are both good and bad. There are sins that others struggle with each day that I can turn my nose up at. Both there are also things that I know I have to stay from away from that wouldn't bother others in the least. So I suppose this point really has as much to do with having the courage to admit and face your struggles as it does with knowing what they are. This reminds me of a passage in 1 John 1, where it says that if we say we have no sin then we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins He is faithful and will forgive us and cleanse us from our unrighteousness. This scripture really teaches us that we have to know what sin we have in our life. And in order to confess it, we have to have owned up to and confronted it.

The second thing we've got to do is to remember that whenever temptation comes it is from Satan. It's not accident and it's not from God. This is really a common sense idea. You can't beat an opponent if you don't know who it is you're up against. Just like any ball game. You know who you're scheduled to play - and in a lot of cases you'll even have a scouting report on them. Fighting against the devil is no different. Ephesians 6:12 tells us that we're not fighting against flesh and blood but against the ruler of the dark world and against spiritual wickedness in high places. Remember that it's him you're up against and that you have a game plan to beat him - the Bible.

If these first two don't completely do the trick - then check this out. Every sin we get into has consequences, spiritual and physical consequences. The biggest consequence is obvious. Sin leads to spiritual death and spiritual death is separation from God. That's what Jesus' purpose was in coming to earth - to remove that separation and bring you and I back into relationship with our Heavenly Father. But aside from that big one, there are many other tangible consequences that we have to live with every day. I often hear people question God for the terrible things that happen in our world. Often those questions even turn into blame. I don't kid myself into thinking I have any answers to these question. I don't. If I did I would have written a book and gotten well off of it. But here's one thing I do know. Most of the problems that you and I deal with, and most of the problems the world deals with, are a direct result of someone's sin. There's always a consequence - we shouldn't ever forget it.

Ok, here's the fourth. Know specific scriptures that directly to challenges that you face. Being able to respond with the Word of God is the best weapon we have to use when Satan shows his face. But in order to use it, we have to know it. Reading our Bible every day is better than any medicine or vitamin in the world. It'll help keep you healthy and strong!

Here's the last one - remember that the war has already been won. Jesus won the war when He gave Himself up on the cross and then beat death. We are really just fighting those last few skirmishes and battles - and you can win. Remember what James 4:7 says - submit yourself to God, resist the devil and he will flee from you.

The battle is yours to win. God Bless!

Temptation - The Devil's Playground, pt.3

2009-04-30T03:20:00.001-05:00

This discussion on Satan and temptation goes a little further. So here's part 3 of 4. But before we start, let's do a little recap. In the first post, we talked about how Satan is planning, purposeful and specific when he tempts you. There are no accidents or coincidences. Satan knows what he's doing; and he does it really well.

In the 2nd post we talked about how Satan gets us to take the leap and land (sometimes head first) in sin. Really, there's two different ways that he operates here. First - he's the world's best liar. Period. No questions about that one. So yes, he's a liar, what does that matter? Well, it's the way that he lies. He sets up his lies to make bad things look really good. So that way, we end up tricking (or convincing) our self that what we are tempted to do, say, or get into, really isn't that bad. Or, even worse - that it's good.

In this third post, I want for us to talk about how he does this. From what I can tell there's a 5 step process. And it leads us from where we start with the initial temptation and end up spiritually bankrupt and completely separating ourselves from God. But, before we really get started, make sure you have your Bible and a highlighter and pen handy to make notes of important scriptures.

Okay, let's start with step one by looking at Ephesians 4:17-19.
"So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness."

Check out that phrase, "darkened in their understanding." If you have a KJV, it says "having the understanding darkened." This means that the lights were turned out on their ability to understand their sin - or even that they were sinning. The Bible says that their hearts couldn't see the sin and that because of their ignorance they were separated from the life of God. Do you know what ignorance means? It's not a bad word. It's not the same as being dumb. Dumb means that you have tried but you're not able to understand. Ignorant means that you just don't know - no one has told you. That's not a bad thing - but it's definitely VERY dangerous.

So, put yourself in this spot. Satan drops a temptation in your lap and starts you off by playing on your ignorance and gets you to think, "I'm not sure what's right and what's wrong." Now, you might be thinking to yourself, "that doesn't make sense. I know what sin is and what it isn't. I know what's right and what's wrong" Well, you half right. You don't go into a temptation or sinful situation on purpose, do you? I hope you said no. Instead, Satan puts you in a tempting situation. It's in the middle of the situation that Satan plays on your ignorance - and you get caught up in it - and you sin.

Since we know that Satan tempts us with sin that we are already weak in, let me ask you this question. First, think of something you struggle with. Have you given into that temptation just once? Or is that an every day (or nearly every day) battle that you lose more often than you would like to admit? You see my point.

This leads to step two - hardening of your heart. Repeating a particular sin leads us into apathy. And what that really means is, not caring what's right or what's wrong. For someone to not care if they are sinning, their heart has been hardened to the point where it doesn't hurt anymore. The sin has invaded their life to the point that they don't care whether or not they sin. And they don't care if they break God's heart. Have you ever been there? I have, and it hurts. And if you left the hurt, and the shame and embarrassment, keep you from reaching out and taking God's hand you will fall deeper into sin.

If that happens, then you get to the spiritually depraved place where you lose your sensitivity. And a loss of sensitivity leads you to the place where you can say, "I know it's wrong. I don't care that it's wrong and I like it. And I'm going to keep doing it." Wow. Not a good wow - bad wow. Have you been here? Are you here now? I have. And it's a scary and lonely place, because God is nowhere near. When we willingly choose to sin we literally push God away and pull Satan in.

The sin leaves you broken and hurt. It leaves you guilty and ashamed. It leaves you depressed and lonely. It leaves you feeling like you can't go back to when it was just you and God. And so, too often, we quit trying. We give in and we get to the point that we can't stop doing what's wrong. It's not that we can't stop. We just think we can't because we're not able to see any other options. So, like I said, we just keep on walking down that road. Does any of this sound familiar?

When it gets to the point where we can't stop doing what's wrong, we're indulging in sensuality. This leads straight into the final step. Which is really no step at all - it's spiritual destruction. It's at this point when we have completely separated our self from God. We have pushed him away and are completely alone. We've got nothing left in our spiritual tank. Satan has lied to us, tricked us, gotten us to buy in and then left us stained with sin and feeling used and alone.

This sounds pretty awful. Because it is awful. Being away from God is the worst feeling in the world, and it's literally the worst place to be. I hope you've never been here before. I hope you're not here now.

If you are, check out this passage. Ephesians 2:3-8:
"Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;"

For sinners like us, this has got to be one of the sweetest scriptures in the Word. Even if we are spiritually dead in sin, God will bring us back to life in Jesus Christ our Savior. That's how much he love us, how much he loves you. If you'll let Him, he'll heal your broken heart and take away the pain. He'll take away the guilt and He'll give you a sense of fullness - a sense of Christ's love.

Check back for the last post in this series. It's all good news - you'll love it.

Temptation - The Devil's Playground, pt.2

2009-04-15T23:36:00.010-05:00

In the last post we talked a little about the idea, (actually fact is a better word), the fact, that Satan is responsible for each of your temptations. It's Satan that tempts you to give in to your personal desires and he does it with a specific plan that he has laid out just for you. You see, he understands you. He knows your heart, your weaknesses, your strengths, and even the secret desires and motivations that you thought were hidden and locked away. And he is always looking for the right chance to put the right temptation in front of you.

So how does he do it? How does he manage to get us to make decisions that we never would have dreamed of doing? Or what about those small little silly, even stupid decisions that aren't life altering, but leave you feeling disappointed with yourself, and just a little further away from Jesus? How does he get me not to turn the channel when some junk comes on the TV? How does he get me to lose my temper (in front of my kids) and yell at some guy who wasn't paying attention and cut me off? I know better. But still I do it. Well, here's the best answer that I have.

First, he's a liar. Sounds harsh, but if it walks like a duck . . . Satan really is the world's foremost expert on lying. No one does it better. In fact, here's what the Bible has to say about it.

"He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and father of lies." -John 8:44

So, not only is he a liar - he's really good at it. So what's the point? Well think about it this way. When was the last time you blatantly chose to sin, knowing exactly what you were doing, why you were doing it, that it was a sin, you felt good about it, and you did it anyway. It just doesn't happen that way. Satan fills our head and our heart with misinformation, doubt, half-truths and in some cases outright lies. Well, that's his first tool.

The second is the way he makes bad things, look really good. Just take the example of sexual temptation. Within a marriage, sex is a good thing. It's God's wedding gift to a married couple. But outside of marriage, it's an awful sin that has awful consequences. And Satan uses everything from the physical act itself all the way to a small, tiny second look as you walk past someone, to lure us into sinful spiral leading to spiritual death. We know its a sin when we have impure thoughts. And we know we're letting God down when we give into those thoughts. Yet, we still give in. So how does Satan do it? How does he get us to do something we know is wrong and will hurt us? He makes it look really good!!! He exploits our God-given needs and desires and uses them against us. It's really that simple. Most of the time, sin looks good, sounds good, feels good - well, you get the point.

Temptation - The Devil's Playground, pt.1

2009-04-14T00:33:00.006-05:00

We see throughout the Bible that people are tempted to sin. Some give in and some don't. I would guess that every day you are tempted to sin. I know I am. Sometimes I give in. Sometimes I don't.

We know all this. We understand this. It's nothing new. But do you realize that every temptation you face is NOT an accident - at least I don't think it is. Take David for example. Why do you think he was walking around on his roof that evening (2 Samuel 11)? Do you think he went up there hoping see a woman bathing? Probably not. He was the King - if that's what he wanted there were much quicker and easier ways to get it. He probably went out there for the same reason any of us would - enjoy the fresh air, the beautiful sky, get away from things and people for a while, maybe just to relax.

This is the point where the conversation about Satan comes in. I believe Satan set up that entire incident exactly how he wanted it. And I think that David was probably predisposed to a sexual weakness in the first place. The devil knew this and simply laid out the temptation (or trap) and David walked right into it.

Consider this next time you find yourself wandering towards a temptation. 1 John 5:19 says that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. And 1 Peter 5:8 tells us that Satan is always on the look-out for a chance to attack us. Satan is out there. And he knows your personal weaknesses. So the next time you find your eyes or mind wandering, or you're thinking of doing "it," take a time out, look around and see what's really going on. At that very moment Satan is at work on you. Just tell him no and he'll leave you alone - James 4:7.

Does the Bible teach socialism?

2009-04-01T01:32:00.009-05:00

I have always heard that the Bible teaches socialism - at least a form of it. And without giving it much thought I pretty much just assumed that was correct. After all, there are examples throughout the book of Acts that show how the early church had a "welfare" system in place. That is, that everyone gave (some substantially) of their own means so that all could have. However, I never really took the time to look into this. That is, until a recent economics course. Here's a condensed version of a paper I wrote on the subject.

According to Dictionary.com, capitalism is “an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations.” Based on this definition, the thrust of capitalism is that all things economic (being the production and consumption of resources) are to be held privately and not be governed by a single source, i.e. government. Further then, the idea of being private is to assume and infer freedom of choice with limited interference or direction; and that direction being only that minimal amount that is necessary to maintain social order. Leaving these principles leads to an abandonment of capitalism.

The question then is, where does Bible stand on this? And even more specifically, does God call his followers to practice capitalism? The answer is yes. The scriptures referring, in even the slightest manner, to economics are undoubtedly biased towards capitalism; and not just capitalism, but capitalism that is in its purest form. Said another way, we should not necessarily look to the context of the current economic environment for an accurate example of the ‘what’ and ‘how’.

This having been, there are certainly scriptures that on the surface do not appear to be favoring capitalism. And Christ himself teaches lessons throughout the New Testament where it could be reasonably deduced that capitalism is unhealthy and leads to a sinful life. Here are examples of both.

Acts 2:45 – “and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone who might have need.”

This text provides an example of the early Church practicing a model of socialism. Perhaps more specifically, they were practicing a form of what we refer to as welfare or the redistribution of wealth. They collected and combined their resources and then redistributed them throughout those who had need within their group.

Another such example is found in Acts 4:32-37 – “³²And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. ³³And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. ³⁴For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales ³⁵and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need. ³⁶Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement), ³⁷and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

This text goes a step further and indicates a centralized organization and distribution through the apostles. And because of this factor, this illustration more closely represents a socialist system than the previous text - which is obviously in contrast to capitalism. To take this thought a step further, the text continues by telling the story of a married couple who sold their land but held back some of the profits for themselves. They were struck dead for their transgressions.

These two arguments that have been presented are common in this religious debate – does the Bible teach socialism? With that having been said, while they do portray this picture a certain way, there is much more to be considered than just the practical perception – which is that this collection and redistribution of resources inherently speaks against capitalism. This is an errant argument because it ignores the political and social context of the situation and the theological framework of the text. In both these examples there is a clear inference of the participants willing participation – which as referred to previously is paramount to the definition of capitalism. There is no indication of organizational, social or political pressure being applied. To the contrary, the primary theological lesson of these texts is that these new Christians are motivated and called to give liberally by Christ’ love that now lives in them and is poured out through the Holy Spirit. Consideration of these facts leads to the conclusion that these two scriptures are examples of capitalism being practiced in its purest form. More specifically, individuals of greater means saw a need and opportunity to help and then freely choice to give of their personal resources. These examples dispel the argument that some form of socialism is necessary to care for and provide basic necessities for those who are unable to do so for themselves.

There is often a perception that the primary premise or purpose for capitalism is for the individual to be able to gather and accumulate as much wealth as possible – otherwise, why not just endeavor to make the collective group as wealthy as possible. In accepting this idea, the text found in Matthew 6:19-21 becomes particularly relevant. It states, ¹⁹"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. ²⁰"But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; ²¹for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also”.

The Christian who opposes capitalism or perhaps is just of the opinion that the Bible teaches socialism, will reference this scripture to argue that capitalism leads to a sinful love and accumulation of money. And then deduce and further argue that since Jesus stated that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," that capitalism is wrong or leads to sin. This argument ignores the context of the text and audience to whom Jesus was speaking. He was talking about our priorities. He understood, even then, the strong attraction (or temptation) of materialism. He was simply providing a stern warning to avoid the temptations of materialism

2009-03-17T22:52:00.005-05:00

Admitting failure is tough. It's painful and it creates embarrassment. Those two things alone make it worth avoiding. But when you find a way to say, "you know, I stunk, I dropped the ball, I didn't do a good job . . . I failed," those feelings of inadequacy, pain and embarrassment are washed away by the Grace of God. In my first run in ministry I did fail. It took me a few years, but I finally figured out why. Because I quit! That's it, that's the reason. Before the moment that I emotionally and mentally packed it in, I was just like any other minister who faced struggles. But I became different when I allowed Satan to use my struggles against me. I have committed to myself to be aware, and guard against these potential pitfalls.

There is a great book available for anyone working in ministry. Leadership From the Inside Out by Kevin Harney. It's a great read and provides insight into avoiding the pitfalls that all ministers face.

God Bless!

Back Home

2009-03-17T22:19:00.005-05:00

Five years ago, I left the ministry. I was hurt. I was spiritually and emotionally bankrupt. I loved what I did, but I just didn't want to do it any longer.

About six months ago, I began to realize that the bad experiences I had were my fault. I was responsible for my own emotional and spiritual state. Not anyone else. And I finally found the courage to face up to my weaknesses (or you might say, the things Satan used to attack me), pray about them and give them over to my Father. It's really neat - the indescribable peace that overcomes you when you freely admit to yourself that you're not Superman (or really even a Super Christian), that God doesn't expect you to be, and then you allow HIM to work on you and in you. When I did this last fall, I slowly began to realize that God still had plans for me, and that those plans might come sooner than I had realized.

So as I sit here now, in the late-night quiet of my new office, I begin a new journey. God has brought me home to serve His family - to serve my family. I am back at work where I belong.