Some Things Never Change

I once asked a man how often we as a group take a look at our standards and make sure that everything we were being taught was actually still relevant and update those items that weren't relevant anymore. He replied that we never update the standards because they were Biblically based and that meant that they were correct and you don't change something that is correct. He also implied that any standard that we taught had always been relevant and would always remain relevant.

This discussion happened over a decade ago and it was one of those "aha!" moments for me. His answer got me thinking. Ever since I've always wondered just how true that the statement that everything that will ever be relevant would always remain relevant really was. I've always wondered just how change effects us here and now in our Christian walk.

Jesus never changes (Heb 13:8), but does that mean that nothing ever does? I wondered this and searched the scriptures and found some things that I question whether or not they are still relevant.

You knew that there was going to be one example dealing with clothing, so I'm going to get it out of the way. Currently I'm wearing 100% cotton clothing other than on my feet. My socks are a poly-cotton blend, which are a sin (Lev 19:19). As a matter of fact many of the articles of clothing that we wear, regardless of whether they are modest or not, are sinful. Sure, these socks breathe and my feet don't sweat like they do in some of my Holy socks (no pun intended), but they are still a sin. I have found a Biblical solution though and plan to correct the situation very soon (Matt 18:8).

Today I ate lunch at a Chinese buffet, and ate three little skewers of crab meat. They were tasty little abominations (Lev 11:10), but fortunately for me I found out that they were actually imitation crab made out of whitefish. Still it did look like crab so I think it was technically still a sin (1 Thess. 5:22).

I live in Michigan and the economic troubles here are greater than those just about anywhere else. I've always got an eye out for alternative sources of income and I think I found one (Exodus 21:7). Sure, it might not be a recurring stream of income, but at least it's one less mouth to feed right?

Keeping with the economy, I've noticed that more and more people in my church are working non-traditional schedules. I've also noticed that more and more you hear about the person who is missing church because they had to work. Now I know that we have to kill these people (Exodus 35:2), but the thing I've always wondered is how?

Should we be exempting our children who attend school from playing football (Lev 11:7-8)? What about all the good Christian men who shave? When we use the verse Lev. 19:28 to state we shouldn't have tattoos, why does Lev. 19:27 get overlooked when it tells us not to trim our beards? Lev. 19:26 means your steak must be well done and that even medium-well is out. Does this verse doom Holy people to dry steak?

Am I being silly in bringing up these absurdities here? Maybe just a little bit, but only to make a point. If you are going to make a statement that everything that has ever been relevant will always be relevant, then these scriptures are definitely relevant. They are at least as relevant as the old standard that made it a sin to drink soda from a bottle. At least the items I'm bringing up are Biblical (though that term is subjective).

If you are going to make a point of being under the law, you must take it all; you can't pick and choose (Gal 3:10). Of course we are not under the law now, at least not if we are led by the Spirit (Gal 5:18). So in going from being under the law to being led by the Spirit, things have changed, at least once.

We have changed how we do things outside of this massive shift from the law to grace as well. Let's face it, life is changing all the time. Let me tell you that just over the last few years I've seen pay phones, department stores, and dial-up modems become much less relevant to today's society. Carriages will never be the standard of transportation again. The majority of people no longer live on farms. Newspapers will eventually become a nostalgia item because they are on their way out of the mainstream. Why is all of this true? Things change.

It was the Greek philosopher Heraclitus that said "The only constant is change" [1]. Isaac Asimov said "It is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be ..." [2]. Why is it that these men, one of which was a professed atheist, have a better grasp on how people work that we seem to? What is it holding us onto the idea that change is evil other than righteous indignation?

This post is not meant to address any particular standard at all and is merely addressing the question of should our standards ever change. I'm simply going to sum up by asking you a question. Just how far should we reject change? Should we just plant our feet and stand our ground every time the word is even mentioned or should we find a way to accept it, deal with it, learn from it and come out on the other side of change better than we started?

Just one additional thought. There definitely are some timeless truths that really shouldn't change, but when you lump everything together and make blanket statements that nothing should ever change, when that very blanket statement ends up being questioned these timeless truths are questioned as well. I know that Gal 5:9 is talking about sin and not classification, but the point of it certainly applies.

References:

[1] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Heraclitus
[2] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov

Reva Mears Bio

Reva Mears Bio

Newborn, 1898 in christening gown

I’m sure it was cold that wintry day in 1898 when little Reva was born. It was the 24th of January in the small town of Carmi, Illinois. James and Margaret Mears already had a two-year old son named Ralph. Soon after Revas birth James was disastrously killed while working in the coal mines. In 1900 Margaret re-married a man by the name of Louis Jones. (Commonly referred to as “Daddy Jones” by Will Sowders and others that became acquainted after his coming into the church years later.) Louis was a widower, and had two sons (Bill and Earl) of his own that were almost the exact same age as Ralph and Reva, so he and his new wife raised all four boys showing no distinction between any of them.

Reva as teen working coal mines

Reva was raised in the small town of New Haven, Illinois. He must have been around 9 or 10 years old (circa 1907 or 1908) when he dropped out of school his 3rd or 4th grade year and began working.

Approximately 1915 he re-located to work in the coal mines in western Virginia and then on to Norfolk for about a 5-year period.

Just after the start of WWI not only did he begin working as a long-shoreman at a naval station loading and unloading freight on the docks, but he also married ~1917. I’m sure after finding solace in his new found relationship he was devastated when tragically his wife and child both died. (Possibly tied to the 1918 TB epidemic)

Surely these heartbreaking events contributed to him finding his way to a Pentecostal church where he was saved and filled with the baptism of the Holy Ghost. He worked in a factory in Evansville, Indiana, and one night after work he had a very unusual dream: He was on a riverbank and there was a torn fishing net lying at his feet. He could hear the oarlocks of a small boat coming up the river in his direction but could not see because of the thick underbrush on the banks of the river. Soon a muscular, red-faced man with his sleeves rolled up, came into view and rowed to the shore and called for him to aid him in the project of repairing the net. He began to show him a special kind of knot that would mend this torn net. He told Reva to start on one end and he would start on the other and they would meet in the middle.

Reva & Elva 1923

So this brings our story up to 1920 in Evansville, Indiana. Reva, being 21 years of age when visiting a local Pentecostal church, is shocked to recognize that the guest preacher from Anna, Illinois, as none other than the fisherman from his dream. The following year (1921), Will Sowders having some trouble with the church in Anna moved to work with the folks in Evansville. It was also in this same church that Reva met his bride-to-be Elva Fulton. She had been attending this same church since 1917, prior to the visit from Will Sowders or Reva Mears. They were married on June 22nd of 1922.

Reva began receiving keys to the scriptures from Will Sowders. He began giving more and more of his time to the study of God’s word. It seemed that one scripture would unlock another and then another and the Bible came to life in a new way.

Reva baptizing in the river.

Reva with Cornelius 1923

Reva & Clyde Dixon holding a Tent Revival in Memphis, TN.

In June of 1923 his first son Cornelius was born. Also at this time Will Sowders began to send him out with men like Alonzo Shoemaker to hold tent revivals throughout Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois and Tennessee.

After unusual experiences in July of 1925, Reva and Elva establish a church in his hometown of New Haven, Illinois. In 1928 he was holding a tent revival meeting in Martinsville, Indiana, where his 5-year-old son Cornelius remembers his first experience with the Lord. He would often share about Will Sowders newly converted son, James, singing “Yes I Know, Jesus Blood Can Wash The Vilest Sinner Clean” The feeling the conviction of the Holy Ghost came over him right in the middle of practicing his guitar for service that night.

Reva and his family traveled extensively and it is impossible to track all of their activity in those early years. He was very active in threshing the word at both the Olmsted and Elco camp meetings in southern Illinois. By 1929 the Mears family set up camp in Memphis, Tennessee and established a church located at 3rd and McLemore st. A number of preachers came down to host revivals for him in the area. One tent meeting of significance was held by Clyde Dixon. Many, including R. E. Dawkins received the Holy Ghost at this revival. America was ripe for the Pentecostal message and Reva, Elva and their two sons made quite a circuit. Again in 1930 they were back in Martinsville working with a church there.

Over the next several years through a series of ups and downs, Reva became discouraged and decided to back away from the ministry. Hoping to stay low profile, he lived in New Haven for a while. They ended up visiting a Pentecostal church without a pastor in Bloomington, Indiana. Bro. Fodrell, a man from that local church asked him to preach. As his gift once again began to manifest, the deacons requested him to stay on to take the roll of pastor in their church in 1935. Because the church was affiliated with the Assemblies of God, the district superintendent requested Reva to become licensed if he was going to continue working in that capacity. He felt the Lord had revealed too much about the danger of organized religion, so he refused and stepped down.

Visiting Indianapolis, Indiana he was called upon to minister by the pastor George Lawson. My grandfather relayed to me how he could feel the tension and indecision in his father as he was sitting next to him on the front row of the congregation. When he obeyed the request, the Lord came in and once again began to anoint the message that was so precious to him.

Daniel Sturgeon & his father Cheif Raincloud with Reva in KC, Missouri

After yet more traveling and just before the start of WWII at the age of 38, ~1936, Reva again moved the Mears family, this time to establish a work in Kansas City, Missouri. Over the next 8 years they worked with people there and hosted several Schools of the Prophets in their building at 13th and Winchester. I have both audio and film footage from this time period and it will be available in the future. During this time he was also active in the Shepherdsville, Kentucky camp meetings being held by Will Sowders.

In 1944 he sent his oldest son (Cornelius) and his daughter-in-law (Alberta) to scout out a place to establish a church in Southern California. Although the story has been told incorrectly, Reva continued to work closely with Will Sowders. Will Sowders not only sanctioned the move, but also was quoted as saying that Reva Mears could be separated from him for fifty years and come back together and be the same both doctrinally and in spirit. However, over the next three years his health began to deteriorate rapidly. In 1947 he felt to close the work in California and move back to New Haven and get closer to his friends and his roots. While driving back with his wife and youngest son he passed away in Magdalena, New Mexico.

Reva's funeral and burial at the Shepherdsville, Kentucky, campground.

There were two separate funeral services held. One was in New Haven, Illinois, and the other at Shepherdsville, Kentucky, which is where he is buried. Both of these transcripts will be posted on my website over the next few months. Following the service in Shepherdsville, Will Sowders ordained Cornelius Mears to preach the gospel and sent him to continue the work in California.

Reva introduced a tremendous number of people to a relationship with God and his word throughout his short 49 years. He definitely had an Achilles heel, but almost every single person that I have interviewed has pointed out to me the excessive mercy that he exhibited as a result. The Lord chose to use broken vessels of clay in the first century and it appears that he has continued to do mighty works with flawed earth. I am looking forward to a time that his bride will be presented without spot, wrinkle or any such thing.

I hope you enjoyed this look into the past. I have more history that I am working so please pray for me that I am able to successfully discover more pages to share.

Merry Christmas,

Paul Farmer

I'll Keep Holding On To Jesus

I've been sitting here and thinking about the year 2009 and all that it has brought us. I can't speak for everyone, but personally I've been shaken more this year than in any other year since 1999. Without getting into specifics, I'd like to compare and contrast them.

Both 1999 and 2009 were transitional years for me where change was very much the norm. In both years I suffered personal loss, disappointment, frustration and much more. In both of these years I can say that important parts of my life came crashing down all around me and my faith was shaken and tested. Both of these years had a very similar impact on my life and left me reeling. However the real difference between the two can only be measured in my reaction to the trouble I experienced.

In 1999 when life became more than I could handle, I became very despondent and turned inward. I was hurting and I blamed God for what had happened to me. Resentment built inside me and I began running from God. It took a long time for me to stop running and to start turning to God instead and even when I stopped running, the hurt remained for a long time. I didn't willingly give that up, and it wasn't until years later that He just took that hurt from me and the wounds that I suffered in 1999 were finally healed. During 1999 it often felt that God didn't even know who I was.

In 2009 when life became more than I could handle, I did get very sad but this time I turned to Jesus. I was hurting, but I recognized that God is in control. My faith was strengthened because I began running to God. I've had a constant friend who has walked beside me and someone to bear my burdens for me. I've given the problems and the pain away and He took that hurt from me and the wounds that I've suffered in 2009 haven't been nearly as severe as they could have been. During 2009 I've known that God not only knows who I am, but also that He cares for me.

Why do I write about these two years in my life on my blog? Because I know that this year hasn't shaken only me. I know that there are many people out there for whom this has been a year of struggle and hardship and if this describes you, I want to remind you that God is there with you and that He cares for you. I know that He watches out for me, and you too can know this with out a doubt.

So many songs have been written that express this so well. "His Eye is on the Sparrow", "Sheltered In the Arms of God", the song I borrowed my title from "I'll Keep Holding On To Jesus" and so many, many more. However the second verse in the song "Til the Storm Passes By" caught my attention today, and I want to reproduce it here for you.

Many times Satan tells me there is no need to try,
For there's no end of sorrow, there's no hope by and by,
But I know Thou art with me and tomorrow I'll rise,
Where the storms never darken the skies.

Do not give in to the lie that things are terrible. Remember that He is wonderful and anything that seems to be terrible looses its significance. If you are feeling pressed under the weight of the world and you are beginning to despair, I want you to pray this simple prayer.

"Jesus, I love You. Jesus, I need You."

He is there for you, always.

Fear

Fear is a normal part of human existence. It is a survival mechanism that is built into our very core. In a dangerous situation, fear is often what can help us make a good decision, reducing or negating harmful repercussions of the danger. Fear helps us keep from getting hurt. Fear is natural and it is a good thing.

As children we need to be taught what to fear and what not to fear. We are not born with a list of what can and cannot hurt us. Childhood fears are often irrational. Kids are scared of monsters, the dark, the elderly and a host of too many thing to list, however these fears most often have no basis in reality. On the flip side, teenagers often don't have enough fear, are reckless and take stupid risks. This irrational lack of fear shares a common element with childhood fears in that it has no basis in reality.

Children and teenagers are both more interested in what they believe that what is true, and they build their fear, or lack thereof, on their own perception instead of reality. It's often not until reality intrudes into their make-believe that they are forced to deal with the truth and see things for what they truly are. Yes, children do grow out of their fears and teenagers do eventually learn proper fear, but sometimes it takes a tragedy for our young people to incorporate understanding into their view of the world and of themselves. Adults who have experience with remorse and loss have far less difficulty knowing what to fear and what not to fear.

Fear is something you learn, something that can be taught. Herein lies one great problem with fear. People will use fear to their own advantage. Fear can be a tool of domination in any situation where one person is over another. Whether it is a parent with a child, a boss with an employee or a ruler with a nation, fear can be used to gain the advantage over another person, to control that person. Frightening people into doing what you want is not a hallmark of benevolent leadership. Using fear is the equivalent of a threat, just more subtle and perhaps more devious.

Those who would employ fear in this way may not have terrible motives, but even if their motives are pure, their methods leave much to be desired, and more often than not this is not the case. A boss might threaten discipline or termination to an employee to gain an unfair advantage over them. A parent may find themselves reduced to using fear to get their child to behave. Using fear this way does not leave the recipient of that fear with a feeling that the other person has their best interest in mind and this should be the case, especially in a loving relationship like that of a parent and child or a husband with a wife. For a while it may seem that fear is doing precisely the job it was intended to, but eventually it ends up warping both individuals, the one who uses fear and the one who is the target of that fear. Using fear in this way is not healthy for anyone.

People have a breaking point at which their anger and resentment outweigh their fear and they rebel against authority. At this point intentions are irrelevant and all that matters now is that the method, fear, will no longer be tolerated. Regardless of the outcome the person will break through this yoke of bondage that was placed on them and fight against it. Sometimes the relationship can be saved, but this is not always the case and never without reconciliation. Additionally, once a person has had to fight for their freedom this way, they are conditioned to fight, and it becomes harder for them to accept a legitimate form of authority.

When authority is built on a foundation of fear, that authority crumbles when the fear is removed. When a leader leads with fear, when they no longer are feared, they no longer lead. When this erosion inevitably begins, what often happens is that person will try to hold on to their authority and focus on that so much that they are revealed to be more interested in control than in truly leading, and their authority bleeds away from all the faster.

Unfortunately the flip side of this is that someone who has been controlled through fear this way often finds it difficult to break out of this controlling type of situation. A nation that has known no other leadership other than tyranny will lash out when that leadership is deposed unless the leadership that replaces it is equally tyrannical. A person that has had one emotionally abusive relationship, if they are able to break out of it often find themselves moving into another abusive relationship, or a series of them. Perhaps most tragic example of this regards the relationship of a parent with a child. What happens most often in this case is that this emotional abuse is channeled into the next generation, and is perpetrated on another innocent child, or children. It is a damnable cycle that is difficult to break out of.

If you haven't quite caught up with me yet, I'm going to be extremely clear in my next sentence. Using fear this way is abuse, plain and simple.

My point in presenting fear to you in this way is to point out that our lives should not be like this. We should not be oppressed by fear. However, there is a more insidious level of this that I haven't discussed yet. Religious fear.

All the things I've said about using fear to control people still applies in a religious setting, but there is another level to it that makes it more nefarious. When a religious leader uses fear to control, the recipient has been taught that to not allow himself to be controlled is rebellion or in other words, a sin. These people often are too afraid to stand up because their leader has taken a hostage, their soul, and is threatening eternal destruction if his demands are not met.

Why would you rise up against abusive authority if you have been taught that it is a sin to rebel against authority, any authority? How difficult would it be to live when you knew that you were the only one who felt this way because your leader told you that this was true and anyone else who actually did feel this way were also too scared to say anything about it too? Many are the quiet cries for understanding, love and help that are not only going unanswered, but also unspoken because the very people who have been called to care for the flocks have abdicated this responsibility and instead have held the flock in check through fear.

Jesus asked Simon Peter three times in John if he loved Him. When he answered, yes Lord, you know I love you, Jesus replied "Keep my sheep in check." (John 21:15-17) Of course He didn't say something so foolish; He said "Feed my sheep". A shepherd who does not care for the sheep does not love the sheep and therefore is not a good shepherd.

I've heard it said that God uses the shepherds as His conduit to speak to His sheep. This is true, but it is not exclusive. It is also not inclusive of those who take it upon themselves to be more than a conduit of God. It is God's responsibility to convict, not man's, and any man who would take this upon themselves steps in between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). These people have taken on the roll of Christ. I find those who abuse their position in the Kingdom of God this way to be an abomination.

Should we submit ourselves to people posing as Godly authority when they are not? I will not rebel against Godly authority and do not have a problem with submitting myself and supporting proper authority. Certainly Heb 13:17 isn't talking about submitting to an impostor. No instead it tells us to submit to those who watch over our souls, not watch out for themselves. I may not outwardly rebel against such a man, but neither will I submit to him; I will not suffer false leadership. I claim Jesus Christ as my ultimate authority, and if any man makes himself to be more than simply a vessel for Christ's authority, he is usurping Christ's authority. No man can take the place of Christ in my life.

Now I do want to make clear that I set a big division separating the man from the fear. While I will never let myself be controlled through fear this way, I will forgive the man who does so when he repents. I may never support that man's "ministry" but I can still love the man. To do otherwise would be to continue resenting a situation that no longer exists, and is symptomatic of delusion.

I want to wrap up this by talking about fools and quoting a scripture. I looked up a quote and was kinda surprised to find that it came from the movie Star Wars, but it is a good quote, so I'll still use it anyway. "Who's the more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?" Don't fool yourself into believing that it is right to follow a man who you know is wrong simply because of a position that he holds. Instead, let your attitude and mind always be to do what is right and submit yourself to Jesus.

Brothers and Sister, if you are living in this kind of oppressive situation I'm speaking to you right now. You don't have to live this way. Don't be fooled, God doesn't use fear to control us and anyone who would isn't operating through Him when he does. Paul told Timothy this very same thing in 2 Tim 1:7 when he said "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." This is your key my friend to combating fear. "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim 1:13). In fact, read the rest of 2 Timothy if you are interested in seeing the proper way for a shepherd to feed the sheep.

I write because I feel that your burden has been laid on my heart and I feel for you. It may not be much, but when you shed a tear, you're not alone. I'm praying for you and will continue to do so, always. Never forget that you are not alone. Run to Jesus when you have been torn down and He will comfort you.

Fear not.

It's Good to be Weak

I've got to say that writing this blog has been a wonderful experience for me. As I've spent time writing and praying about what I've written, I've been reminded over and over how good God has been to me, and how good He is to all of us. I've been so blessed, and I want to try to share some of that blessing with you.

You see, in my life I've constantly needed to watch my spirit as it is just so each for me to think down of people who don't see the truth, and would hide their eyes to illumination. I have to remind myself that they are where God wants them and that God is in control and for me to think less of them only diminishes me, not them. But recently, I've learned another lesson from these situations that I've had to deal with in my spirit, and I'm so glad to have seen it.

You see, some of these people have an attitude that screams "How dare you disagree with me. Don't you know who I am? I'm right and you're wrong! I know more than you. Don't challenge my position." I still have to watch my spirit, maybe more so with these kind of people, but the lesson that I've learned from them sadly is just how easy it would be for me to take up the same mantra and have the same attitude and be just as sure of myself as they are.

Instead though God has worked in my life in a way that reminds me of who is really in control. Almost every time I've had that thought that things were going good and that I had anything to do with it, that good thing has come crashing down on me so fast that it seems that I can't even breathe. But through it all, I've learned to rely on Jesus, and my life is better for it. I've only started on a path of complete reliance on Jesus for my needs, but I've learned the hard way that the only strength that will ever be evident in my life is His strength, because I have none myself (2 Cor 12:9).

I'm a musician, and for just about every point I have to make, I know about a dozen wonderful songs that make that point so much better than I ever could, and this post is no different. There is a wonderful hymn that I think tells of the lesson I'm still learning, and that is "God Will Take Care of You"

Be not dismayed whate’er betide,
God will take care of you;
Beneath His wings of love abide,
God will take care of you.

God will take care of you,
Through every day, over all the way;
He will take care of you,
God will take care of you.

There are three more lovely verses that I will leave it to you to look up, but I've learned that this is true, God will take care of you.

There is so much I could go into, so much support throughout the Bible of what I'm trying to point out that I could just go on and on, but instead I'm going to close this post out by rephrasing another scripture. I love the scripture Phil 4:13, but if someone were to ask me what it means, here's what I'd tell them. I can't do anything without Jesus for He is my strength.

Governing the Body

I'm going to endeavor to keep this post shorter than some of my other posts, but we will see. I tend towards clarity over brevity, but in this case I believe that both can be accomplished.

Over the past few years, and this year especially, I've seen a change in our meetings. They have become more politically charged than I've ever seen before. Who should be in charge, how should we do things, where should people sit, what meetings to attend, the list goes on and on, and quite frankly sickens me. I hear statements like "did you hear what happened in that meeting" more and more frequently and it disturbs me. When did we forget about Jesus in our meetings, and when did worshiping Him take second billing behind body operation? We don't yet totally ignore the moving of the Spirit when we assemble together, but I wonder how long it will be before this happens in one of our meetings.

All the bickering and posturing that goes back and forth is hardly different from a session in one of the houses of Congress. The threshing floor that we all hold so dear has been replaced by the thrashing floor, and clandestine decisions are made in back room meetings. Later, when a minister questions one of these decisions, there is another squabble about who is in charge, and who the greater ministers in our group really are. Jesus had something to say about this, but we've forgotten it (Matt 23:11).

I'm starting to hear terms like "special ministers meetings" or "closed session meetings" in common conversation and it leads me to think that these meetings are only about dealing with a specific issue or so that only a few people who we want involved are. Even in general meetings and at the campground taking care of issues has become much more important, and I wonder just how much room we are going to leave for the edifying of the saints and for simply worshiping Jesus. I ask myself, are we holding church meetings or business conferences?

As a group, I see ministers as less likely to participate in a "down front" service unless it is to bear the burden of praying for someone. I see more ministers at meetings sitting around their chairs while the laity is pressing in, bringing down the Spirit and I ask myself why this is so? Shouldn't our spiritual leaders be on the forefront when we're praising God and getting blessed by Him? Still, I wonder to myself why the seats that most often remain occupied at a meeting when the Spirit is falling are on the platform.

I've come to the conclusion that it is because of the burden that these men bear. There is a burden for each gift, something I plan on writing about later, and what I'm seeing is that many of these men have taken on too much of this burden themselves and that there is too much for these men to do and still pastor their churches effectively. There used to be a time when there were four to six meetings a year, but now there are so many more than that. You cannot go four weeks without there being a meeting that needs to be attended, and because they are so prevalent, they have ceased to be as special for those who attend so many of them, and those often attenders also happen to be the ministry that I am talking about. Even if a meeting is missed, the DVD's of the meeting are available so we can keep up to date and informed about what happened. Our meetings seem to me to have become little more than a repetitive task for our ministry, and this is not something that should be allowed to continue.

So I have a proposal, one that I think would take the pressure off of these men, at least for a while, and help them regain their focus. I think it would alleviate some of the political infighting and stress that has become so prevalent, and restore a joy when it comes to attending these meetings instead of it being the chore that it so obviously is. I suggest a six month hiatus in our meeting schedule starting as soon as is possible.

Some are probably thinking, we can't possibly do this, everything would fall apart in the body, but this is just not the case. What we need is a vacation from meetings. Taking six months off from our busy meeting schedule with a determination to just lay down our issues as they are and pick them right back up later would be a blessing in our group. The time would allow us to take some of the heat out of our arguments and allow tempers to subside. A break could remind us of the good times we've had in our meetings, and strengthen our resolve to not let the current situation reoccur.

Now I know that this post will be thoroughly ignored by those who have any chance of making this happen, and that even if there were a six month break in our meeting schedule, some enterprising church would only see this as an opportunity to have a meeting, but the fact remains that if we don't step back and remind ourselves about what meetings are for and why it is we have them, we will lose what makes meetings special, and eventually meetings won't be any good to anymore other for the entertainment value they can provide while seeing who is mad at whom.

If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development. ~Aristotle~

My long time friend and fellow historian Dan Dillon has requested some assistance in keeping fresh content on his blog. I have some ideas about various issues that God's people are facing, but I am going to refrain from sharing those at this time.

However, since I do not want to leave Dan without content I will fall back on my favorite past time, which is the history of the body of Christ in the 20th century.

Back in the early 1990's I felt a burden to begin preserving our history as a body. Since that time, one hobby that I have thoroughly enjoyed is collecting old photographs. I am working on a book about William Sowders in which many of these pictures will be available to all. Who was he, where did he come from and what shaped his early life?

Well, in the mean time while I am composing this book, I will try to get on here at least twice a month to share a little bit of my findings. Anyone that has done any amount of research on a subject like history will recognize that it is VERY subjective. Sometimes I am unable to recall what I wore to church and ate for dinner on Sunday. Yet I am regularly asking people to recall dates and circumstances surrounding events that happened 50,60 and 70 years ago. There is plenty of room for error and perspective. We should all keep this in mind anytime we are reading one persons reflections. So please know that my names, dates, places and events are subject to be modified at anytime if I have more accurate and specific information become available. So some of the dates are an extrapolation based on other confirmed facts. I have spent a huge amount of time to validate and cross reference the material I have chosen to use. I hope it blesses you as much as it has me doing the research. I should have one bio ready by Sunday November 22^nd.

God bless,

Paul Farmer

Update

I'm going to be taking a brief hiatus, but I'm not sure exactly how long it will last. I just need some time to research some more complex topics so that I don't gloss over them.

What I am trying to do in the mean time is set up some guest content, but that has been slow going. I'm hoping to get some of that soon though, so you might see some stuff pop up soon.

Oh, and BTW, I changed my format one more time because I really liked this one, and it seemed to be more flexible than what I had before.

When I Lift My Hands

One of the time-honored traditions that we have is raising our hands when we worship. I've often heard that when we raise our hands, it is symbolic of surrender, but in this post I want to open your eyes to another reason we might raise our hands.

For any of you who are parents, it may be that you will understand this better than those who do not have children. Imagine your little one, when they were just learning to walk and were still a little wobbly or even just a bit before that. When they would see you walking by, they would reach up for you to pick them up. There's a lesson in this for us if we'll dig a little deeper. Bro. Atwell used to say that if you were always digging, you'd never know where you might find a nugget.

When we raise our hands, we are doing much the same thing as these children. Our raised hands convey our need for our Heavenly Father. When we raise our hands, we are saying "take me" to God.

Most children don't want people they don't know to pick them up, so there's a matter of familiarity too. When we raise our hands, we do so because we trust God. We recognize our own weakness, but we raise our hands confident in the trust that He won't exploit that weakness nor hold it against us.

It's out of love for the parent that a child wants to be held and comforted. Our love for God is also expressed in our raising of hands.

When Jesus said "for such is the kingdom of God" in reference to children, I wonder if maybe there aren't more lessons we can learn from them (Luke 18:16). In the very next verse Jesus says we need to receive the kingdom of God as a little child (Luke 18:17). It certainly couldn't hurt for us to pick up some childlike qualities.

One of my favorite songs is "I Can't Even Walk Without You Holding My Hand" and it expresses one of the things I feel when I raise my hands. I'll never be ready to walk on my own, but I have a promise, and that is I will never walk alone.

So when I raise my hands, I'm not only praising the Lord. I'm also expressing how much I need Him, how much I love Him, how much I trust Him, and I do so knowing without a shadow of doubt that He will meet me, and take me into His comforting arms because He loves me. I am His child.

The Sheep and the Goats

I don't mean to get into a deep theological discussion of sheep and goats. The scripture makes pretty clear the differences in temperaments between the two animals. So this post will be brief.

The first point I want to make is that sheep and goats are similar animals. They both eat similar food in similar amounts. They both require similar shelter and climate. They were both acceptable offerings in the Old Testament (Lev 22:19). Some sheep look just like goats and some goats are a source of wool just like sheep. In many countries where mutton is more common than beef, both sheep and goats are considered mutton, and their meat is used interchangeably. Both animals are raised for both their meat and their milk. Functionally there is a large overlap in these animals; the differences between these animals are just not as monumental as we who were not raised around these animals would expect.

When Jesus spoke of separating the sheep from the goats, His listeners understood that this was not a drastic thing (Matt 25:32-33). A similar comparison was made by Jesus when he spoke of letting tares grow with the wheat (Matt 13:29-30). When we are talking about people, it's not always obvious who is a sheep and is a goat, and it isn't a good idea to try to clear all the goats out of the flock, at least if you listen to what Jesus said about the tares and the wheat. It's the similarity between the animals that sometimes allows goats to flourish among sheep.

There are precisely two types of people who inhabit this planet: children of God and potential children of God. You might say, "I know someone who would never be a Christian" but if you really truly believe they have absolutely no chance, you deny the awesome power of Christ. The marvelous thing about goats, at least metaphorically, is that they can become sheep. "You never know" could not be truer.

I think that the true difference between sheep and goats can be delved by looking at Phil 2:10-11. Perhaps the only real difference between sheep and goats is that when every tongue confesses Jesus, it won't be the first time for the sheep.

The Four-Fold Ministry, Sorta

I had a much different thought in my head as to what I was going to write today, but I really feel led to put that off and instead switch gears.

I've heard how we teach the five-fold ministry as long as I can remember. The teaching originates from Ephesians 4:11, which lists out 5 separate ministerial roles: Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers. A few translations translate pastors as shepherds which is supported by other uses of the word shepherd in the New Testament. Some translations combine pastors and teachers into one combined roll by hyphenating the role, pastor-teachers. Regardless of how these are translated, I want to look into how these gifts are manifested in our group today with particular emphasis on shepherds and teachers?

I want to start with apostles. I'd like to start by comparing an apostle with a missionary, though I know that this is not a one-to-one comparison. Still, there is something of a missionary in an apostle, and the modern missionary is somewhat of a gestalt between an apostle and an evangelist. I believe that it is a good thought process to consider modern missionaries when we are trying to get an understanding of apostles

A missionary does not necessarily need to go far off into a foreign field in order to be a missionary, nor does an apostle have to travel far off in order to start a church. We think of missionaries as those who travel to a far country, spend time learning the language and preach the Gospel to people who have never heard it before. This is a wonderful ministry, and yet there is something to be said of the local missionary as well, who goes and takes what he has and preaches to the lost not far from where he lives and establishes a mission, bringing people what they need. There is some of the gift of an apostle in this too, and a person who establishes a mission to the lost, no matter where they may be, is a missionary.

An apostle is simply put, one who has the burden to go out and start churches. The Apostle Paul traveled around Turkey and Greece establishing churches and paid visits to those churches that he could later. In fact, Paul's journeys are called missionary journeys, so you can see how the term missionary could also apply to Paul.

The role of an apostle in a well defined and established church however is not as large as it is in a newly developing church. When a church becomes established, the apostle might change rolls and becomes that church's pastor, or alternatively he might move on to start another church. An apostle doesn't settle down in a church in the role of a pastor though without a commensurate change in his ministry. Some men have been called to be an apostle and later in their ministry they become the pastor of a church they started, and recognizing that is fine, but at some time that man's ministry changed from a building role to a shepherding role.

This is as good a place as any to point out that a man who "inherits" a church does not need to have been an apostle to do so, and he is not diminished in the least if he was never called to be an apostle as long as he was called to be a pastor. I don't really like the concept of inheriting a church anyway, but it's a phrase we use, so I use it here.

In our group, operating apostles are few and far between. If this were not so, our group would be growing much more than it is. Other than in foreign lands, churches are just not being newly established in our group all the time, and we must judge a tree by what fruit it does or does not bear (Matt 7:17). Our group is growing more from the inclusion of already established churches who've interacted with another of our churches and want to be a part of what we represent.

Some seem to think that overseer is also a good word to describe apostles and there is a measure of truth to this, but when we use that word, we sometimes invent a hierarchy in the ministry that isn't Biblical. To think that an apostle is a shepherd to shepherds is somewhat strange. While an apostle can see a problem in a church and move to help address it, a shepherdherd or uber-pastor is not the same thing as an apostle. There's not a ranking system inherent in the gifts of the ministry.

Prophets in my opinion are few and far between today just as they have always been. They have to have a message to give, and in the absence of a message, prophets don't come around all that often. A prophet is someone used by God to deliver a message to a group, either locally or more wide spread, and you just don't need a profusion of these men to handle this task. If you know someone who is a prophet, and yet they haven't been used in a very long time by the Lord in that fashion, it might be more accurate to say that God used them as a prophet at one time. A gift of the ministry does not necessarily infer a lifelong calling or access to that gift. It's also good to keep in mind that one of the hallmarks of a prophet is often that people to whom the message is addressed won't listen to him (Luke 4:24).

Evangelists are a unique ministry. Their ministry isn't to the saved, it's to the lost. You might think that this is true of all of the gifts, but that is not necessarily so. A pastor isn't much without a church to pastor, I've seen that. An evangelist's role is complementary to an apostle and there is something of the missionary in this gift as well, however instead of establishing churches, he establishes people in churches. When evangelists and apostles are working within their ministries, they produce the building blocks for a growing church. However, I see more to an evangelist than just a missionary, and another word that I use that is good to describe an evangelist is a witness. A witness can operate equally as well in an established church as they can a newly developing church.

I've seen the operation of a witness and what kind of an effect that they can have on the lives of people, and yet we as a group seem confused and don't necessarily understand what it is that an active evangelist actually does. This ministry is an area that we are sorely lacking in, and in which we have some wrong ideas. We are all called to profess our faith to the very ends of the Earth (Acts 13:47), and we have been remiss in doing exactly this (Mark 4:21). Still, there are some people who have a greater calling as a witness and a greater access to this gift. We desperately need more of this ministry active in our churches and this gift is the gift that I fear we is the least operating of the five.

By the way, an evangelist bears witness to the greatness of God, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Speaking to Christians of the greatness of the Body and trying to bring them into our fold is not evangelism, it is something else entirely, proselytizing. An evangelist is not called to bring people out of Babylon into a correct teaching of doctrine, they are called to bring people out of the world into a saving grace. It's good to note that proselytizers were not mentioned in Eph 4:11 and proselytizing is not a gift of the ministry.

At last I've made it to pastors, but I'm going to handle this differently than the other three gifts I've already addressed. We as a group know what the role of a pastor is supposed to be, but in some cases the operation of the gifts of a pastor and a teacher have been merged or at least confused. We have used a simple term, preacher, as a replacement word for pastor, and use it to mean a pastor who relies on teaching. I'm not condemning the act of preaching, or ignoring the necessity of pastors to teach, however there is a portion of the ministry of a pastor that is missing in some of our churches. The role of a pastor is so misunderstood in some of our assemblies that some people are hesitant to even refer to their pastor as such, as if doing so were some sin dealing with a matter of pride instead of simply recognizing the pastor of a church as what they are. Other churches jump to the other extreme, nearly beatifying their pastors. Both of these extremes are wrong and frankly something that I just do not understand.

I prefer the term shepherd because it paints a different picture than the word pastor does. We tend to think of a pastor as someone up at the pulpit preaching, hence the term preacher, however we see a shepherd as a person who takes care of sheep. This care-taking is sometimes underemphasized in the role of a pastor and in some churches it has resulted in the people being neglected. Jesus told Peter to "feed my sheep" so He recognized the need for tending that people have(John 21:16-17). Yet instead of caring for the flock, a greater emphasis is put on teaching and a pastor will often see instruction as their greatest calling. They will be tempted to use instruction as a sort of fix-all for any problem they are presented with. They treat their flock with callous disregard and are not even aware that they are doing it. I don't deny that sometimes a pastor needs to teach, but the truth is that sometimes a pastor needs to not teach as well. Constant instruction is not the same as being fed or well tended.

There is a separate gift of teaching and although there is some overlap between the responsibilities and calling of different ministers, I still see that there is value in separating the roles of pastors and teachers. The role of a teacher is to insure that their student understands the material that they are teaching and can grow as a result of the teaching.

A teacher will spend considerable time studying and preparing his material for dissemination. They are responsible to presenting it information to people in a way that they can understand. If a teacher knows his topic but cannot help someone else understand, then that person is a scholar and not a teacher, and not every scholar has the makings of a good teacher.

The five-fold ministry is often symbolized by a hand with each finger representing one gift of the ministry. It's easy to see how a hand with missing or mangled fingers wouldn't be able to operate as well as a complete hand. We don't have a complete fullness of these five gifts working among us yet; if we did we'd be on our way to having a restored church. Right now I make out between two and four gifts functioning as they are meant to in our group right now. Apostles were more prevalent at the beginning of our movement though these men are still around. Prophets and evangelists are a rare sight indeed, at least on a larger scale than just the local church. Pastors and teachers we have, though in some cases these overlap.

We have assembled a ministry composed primarily of pastors or at least where pastors hold sway over the other gifts. To not be the pastor of one of our churches relegates a minister to a lesser role in the overall ministry of our group, even though the scripture does not say this is how this should be. Additionally, many of the pastors that we recognize are actually teachers who have taken a pastoral role, and may be having a detrimental effect on their assemblies. This should not be so in our group, and if we are ever to find a better order than what we have, we need to recognize and promote these other gifts. I long to see a greater working in our group of the different gifts of the ministry instead of what we have today. Better is available regarding the working of the ministry in our group, I hope we strive for it.

Blessings in Disguise

I'm going to handle this post a little differently than most. I'm going to start the post, but I'd really like the people who read this blog to help me finish it. I will point out three things that we normally complain about and show how they are really blessings in disguise, hence the title. I'd really like to get to 12 different things that on the surface may look like annoyances, but aren't as bad as they seem. So if you know of one or two, please add them in the comments of this post.

Children crying in church:
I know that a child crying or acting out during a church service can be an enormous distraction, and that child's parent will either try to ignore it, deal with it or take them out of the service, and it's not until they are dealt with that they cease to be a distraction. These distractions can cause turned heads and in some cases even sour spirits, however there's more here than just annoyance.

Our children, even when they are not behaving, represent a future for the church. They are our legacy, and a reminder of the good things that God has done for us. They represent a special type of growth in the church and it is a blessing for them to be born in the church. Our children are gifts and when they act out, even when we are talking about other people's children, it's good to remember the joy and happiness a child can bring.

Talking in church:
Again I'm bringing up a distraction in church, but when I see some people whispering it reminds me of the bonds that we have. Our churches aren't made up of people who only see each other once a week and never have anything else to do with each other ever. Our churches are closely knitted families, and a little whispering, when it's not excessive or distracting, can even be healthy. It reminds me that we are truly brothers and sisters.

Stormy seas:
If we never had rough times, how would we know we needed God? If we never had a problem, how would we learn to rely on Him? No one likes these times in our lives, but if you're going through a stormy sea and you don't know what to do then you need that stormy sea to remind you that God is in control. If we never felt we needed to lean on Jesus, it's likely we never would. Sometimes rough times are there so that we learn to trust in God more, and the more we trust God, the better we are equipped to handle rough times.

Well, that's three blessings in disguise. I'd really like some of your thoughts on this, so please add some comments to this post and help me today, and I promise tomorrow I'll be back to writing another post like normal.

Overspoken, Underinformed

It is a common trait of humanity that the older we get, the more we fear change. Bureaucracy finds it's roots in this fear. This is a completely natural part of being human, but we live in a world of constant change where every day brings us new opportunities to become obsolete.

Young people seem to thrive on change, keeping up with the newest technologies and ways of thinking. When they get older, they become more entrenched in a way of thinking or doing things. Every one of us will reach a point at which we are most comfortable with how things are, and we will tend to stick with that while the rest of the world passes us by. Some people are still living in the 50's or 60's instead of today, or even farther back. Living in the past this way jades people's thinking about what is happening in the world today creating a filter between them and the world.

What is true for people is true for groups made up of people. However, in a group there is a more powerful tendency for intransigence. One person dealing with change has only to deal with their own personal bias and preconceptions, but a person who is initiating or stimulating change in a larger group has to deal with the corporate biases of the entire group which can be a much more daunting challenge. Because of their very nature, groups have a predisposition to resisting change, which can be either a good thing or a bad thing depending on the change.

Good change is good and bad change is bad. You don't want to change the way things are just for the sake of change, but at the same time, the flip side of that coin is that you shouldn't resist change just because it is change. We need to evaluate each change we consider on the basis of whether it will bring us closer to Christ or will take us farther away from Him.

One argument I've heard made about change hinges around the scripture Heb 13:8. That is a great scripture, one that is a foundational bedrock behind our confidence in Christ, but it doesn't apply to us not changing. Guess, what, I'm not Christ. I do change and I'm not always the same between yesterday and today. I've heard this scripture used in a way to support being resistant to any change that comes along. Taken in context with the next scripture, I see this as more of a statement to avoid strange teachings rather than a directive that we should never change anything (Heb 13:9). Furthermore, in light of what John wrote to the church in Ehpesus, the proper method of dealing with something new is to consider it and see whether or not it lines up with Biblical principle (Rev 2:2). If it is good and true, we should make the change, and if not, we discard it (Phil 4:8). There is a saying that is not scripture, but it is a handy little bit of wisdom to consider when dealing with change: Methods many, principles few, methods always change, principles never do.

Like I wrote earlier, we live in a world of almost constant change and to hide from it and pretend it doesn't exist is at best naive, yet to me this seems to be a common point of retreat whenever we receive any criticism at all because of a change we have made or are even considering. In the meeting in Des Moines this year a prominent minister in our group stood up and said that he was afraid of making changes too quickly. I appreciate his honesty, but I ask myself why we approach change with fear.

Technology, particularly new technology is often feared and reviled by our group. This year alone Facebook, blogging and live streaming have all been either preached against or at least discouraged by ministers in our group. The irony that when Facebook was taught against someone in the congregation updated his Facebook page with it, that I watched the brother talk about live streaming on a streaming video and that I am now blogging about this isn't lost on me. But at least in the case of Facebook, the impression I got when I heard what was being said was that Facebook was wrong.

In each case I am convinced that the person speaking out against each technology was frightfully out of their element. The statements that were made reflect a poor understanding of the technologies that these people were none the less rendering judgment on. Case in point, when blogging was discussed, one of the points against blogging was that it was one way communication. Preaching is also one way communication, so is preaching bad because it is one way? Of course not, but the fact remains that we associate sin with so many things, and the truth is not everything we associate with sin is sinful. Just because we do not completely understand something or that it is isn't in our ken doesn't make it wrong.

Taking this further, preaching that something you don't understand or is out of your realm of experience is sinful is the height of reckless arrogance. If someone preached against the use of a microwave oven because they were miserably misinformed about it's operation, how much credence would we give to him? The answer to that is just about the same credence that users of Facebook will give to those that speak out against it when they obviously don't know what they are talking about. If fear of change is the sole reason that causes people to speak out about the things they do not understand, that is wrong.

Now, I will state that each of these examples that I am using have the potential for misuse. Sure Facebook can be used for less than righteous activities; the same goes for blogging and streaming video. I wonder if the potential for misuse of these tools is what is driving these men to take a stance against them. If so, I at least understand why they would speak out against these things, but that doesn't mean they are right.

The "bad things can happen" argument is not valid for determining whether something is right or wrong or if a change we are considering should be made or not. The potential for abuse is everywhere. If you were to use this logic you could say no one should ever have children because parents can be abusive and that people shouldn't get married because spouses can be abusive. There is a proper use of alcohol, but we all know it's abuse is a terrible thing (1 Tim 5:23). Drugs have their proper uses, but are often abused as well. I wouldn't prohibit the use of drugs because of people who abuse them; that is as irresponsible as the abuse itself.

The list of what can be abused is endless, but it is not the actions themselves that is where the sin lies, it is the abuse. So we should be speaking out about abusing Facebook, streaming video and blogging, but we aren't doing this. We seem to be sweeping abuse under the rug and ignoring it and instead focusing on trivialities. Maybe this is because abuse is so prevalent or because it is not always easily identifiable or maybe it is because there isn't a person I know, myself included, who hasn't abused something or someone someway somehow. Maybe our subconscious leads us to avoid dealing with the problem of abuse because we feel guilt over the abuses we ourselves have committed. Maybe it's easier to point the finger at something else and lay the blame on a thing instead of placing it where it rightfully belongs because we would implicate ourselves.

I hope that this is not the case, but I fear that at least in part it is. Either a fear of change or in some cases guilt is causing some people to pass judgment swiftly and without much consideration when they are speaking out against somethings. I would hate to think that some of these men are making the conscious decision to declare something that may or may not be sinful as sinful without taking time to find out if what they are saying is true simply because it is easier than taking the time to find out for sure, or that someone would preach that something is a sin because it's easier to do so than to tackle the more difficult truth of abuse. In either case doing so is an abuse in and of itself. It's an abuse of power and position, and someone who would do this is much more guilty than someone who is using Facebook in the way I see our people use it.

We must embrace what is good and discard what is evil, and we must be sure about it when we do (1 Thess 5:21-22). Ignoring the root problem and instead focusing on the periphery is as unwise as it is wrong. To think that you can address abuse by forbidding activities that have the potential for abuse is irresponsible. There is a deeper truth to be had that we currently possess on this subject, but it will not be easy. Instead it will be difficult as it will require us to own up to our own culpability and deal with the sin that we would rather gloss over. We will have to be open to the leading of the Spirit and it will demand a higher level of accountability for those in a position of responsibility over others. And for our group to possess this deeper truth, we must change.

Order, Organized, Organization

I've heard people in our group say that we don't want to be an organization for as long as I can remember. It is almost a motto or mission statement of our group that we spurn man's organization and instead we submit to God's order. There is nothing wrong with the way that we mean this, but I wonder if just saying a thing that is good is enough. I want to take a closer look at our order and see if we are following God's order or not.

First of all, I'd just like to state that the differences between how we use the words order and organized are not nearly as large as we make them seem. I wonder if for some people the whole difference between order and being organized isn't just the use of an approved word. What is it we are really talking about? Maybe a good place to start is to describe what we aren't talking about.

What we don't want is to become inflexible (Luke 5:37). I'm not sure whether that scripture is often used when speaking about order, but it is certainly applicable. You can't put new wine in old bottles as the bottles will break and be useless, and the wine will be wasted. When a group draws a line in the sand and sets themselves us as an established organization, we call that a denomination. When a group reaches this point, they have become old wine bottles, not fit for use with new wine. I'm not disparaging old wine, as Luke 5:39 says that old wine is better than new wine, but the fact of the matter remains that new wine becomes old wine, and when all that you have is old wine, after you use what you have eventually what you end up with is no wine. When these groups wine has been exhausted, these groups become empty bottles that can't be used again for anything new and they are left with the memory of how things used to be or more often they ignore it and just go on to something else that is just a carnal work. This emptiness, inflexibility and being unfit for use is what we fear.

What is our ideal when it comes to order? I've heard that we need to go back to the New Testament church order. I ask myself, is this really the answer? I want to explore the New Testament church just a bit.

Even the term New Testament Church may be a bit of a misnomer. Many churches existed during the time of the "Early Church". Paul wrote letters to Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Colosse and Thessalonica. John lists the seven churches of Asia in as: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (Rev 1:11). Acts lists the churches in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1), Antioch (Acts 13:1), Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:41) not to mention all the churches throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria (Acts 9:31).

To insist that these churches functioned as a unified front that should serve as an example for us two thousand years later may be a bit naive. I will admit that some of the people who made up these early churches were directly connected to Jesus as some of them knew Him while He was here and at the very least during the time of the New Testament almost everyone knew someone who did know Jesus. Still, this doesn't elevate that church above the church of today (John 20:29).

There were divisions in the early church just like there are today (1 Cor 1:12). There was sin in the early church (1 Cor 5:1). People in the early church lied (Acts 5:1-10). People abandoned the church for the world (2 Tim 4:10). If you look at the epistles as letters of correction, you can see that just about every one of these churches had problems. So why is it that we look back to these churches as a perfect ideal to live up to?

Could this possibly have something to do with a belief that life was better in the past? The belief that things were better in the "good old days" is a part of the human experience just like the belief that things will be better in the future. I'm not a sociologist, but I don't need to be to see the correlation that age has with these two beliefs. We start out leaning towards believing that everything will be better in the future and as we age we lean towards believing that everything was better in the past. Saying that things were better in the past or will be better in the future can be a coping mechanism for dealing with a less than stellar present. I wonder if there is a correlation to age among our people and whether they look back or look forward more often.

Seeing that our group both reveres the early church and the restored church that is to come, I ask myself if this isn't at least partially due to this completely natural tendency people have to revere the past and hope for the future. Furthermore, I wonder if we sometimes don't use this as an excuse for not having better order in the present because things will get better in the future, and we don't live in the past anymore.

If you think about this, you've probably heard this being said solely in reference to our group. Most likely you've heard references to how we had better order when Bro. So-and-so was still alive, either in local churches or across the entirety of our group. You've probably heard references to the "New Experience" at the campground in a way that makes you think that this was the high point of our group, even though this happened over sixty years ago and a vast majority of the people who experienced it are no longer with us. We revere our past, and I don't have a problem with this, just as long as we are objective. The same goes for when we look forward to the restored church. To look back fondly or look forward expectantly is well and good, as long as it doesn't take our eyes off of the present. An order that is only good either in the past or in the future is not a proper order for today, and because tomorrow becomes today it's not a proper order at all.

So we need an order for today. I'm not going to go into detail with exactly what I think our order should be today because I would get it wrong. What I will state is that Christ is the head of every man and man is the head of woman (1 Cor 11:3). Seeing that our churches are made up of men and women, it seems only logical to say that Christ must be the head of the church. We need to recognize Christ as our head and not any man. Does God use men? Yes. Does he need any specific man? No. Of course, I am not naive enough to think that Christ doesn't use people in the church, but at the same time I wouldn't want to implicate Christ in some of the things that men have done in the church either. Furthermore, do we need any specific man? No, otherwise no church would ever last beyond the span of that man, and it would have been their church, not Christ's. As a matter of fact, a church that has continuing problems dealing with the loss of a leader probably instilled to much confidence in that leader instead of instilling it in Christ.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the order that any church in our group currently has unless it is abusive, however, our order is far from perfect. We must realize this, and just like any ship on a long journey, when we discover that we are off course we need to make course corrections. We don't have a GPS or a sextant to chart our course, instead we have a book, the Bible. Our course corrections must be mandated from the Bible and not from a man (Prov 16:25). Furthermore, if we don't recognize the need to adapt and change, well then we have circled around to the beginning of this post and we are talking about old wine bottles again.

We need to take the order that we have right now and search out how we can make it better. We need to correct our course while at the same time never taking our sight off of Christ and we must never stop our journey. To remain exactly the same way that we are today is to stagnate and fester. Any organism that does not change is one that is dead. To deviate from a Christ-centered course is just a different manner of accomplishing the same thing. So in the end what we are left with is a simple choice. Progress or die.