Merriam Webster defines gnosis as esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation[1]. More simply put, salvation by knowledge. This is nothing but heresy and it denies the grace of God. Do we believe that we have to have all of our doctrines just right in order to be saved? Ask yourself this and see if at least a little of this hasn't crept into what you believe.
We do not have a monopoly on the truth. We might have more of the truth than any other group in existence, and the truth is we still wouldn't have all of the truth. Thankfully there is a Truth that is greater than our truth or my truth.
I've determined that in the grand scheme of things, what I really know is so close to nothing as it might as well be nothing (1 Cor. 13:9,12). I've learned not to lean too much on my intellect (Prov 3:5). But this I know for sure, I have a Savior who died for me because he loved me. If everything else were to fall away, I would know that I was secure. He is sufficient for my need.
Reference:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gnosis
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Standard
In this post I intend to address The Standard, but not only a dress standard. I am capitalizing The Standard for effect, so that I can separate the concept from a dress standard, though I intend to discuss that as well. In a previous post I've stated what I don't believe, but now I am going to state what I do believe. I hope that this post is clear, and that anyone reading this is not confused.
What is a standard? Historically, a standard was a type of military flag that was hoisted up on a pole above the troops that belonged to a particular division. In ancient Rome, the Aquila[1] was the standard that the Roman army flew. This type of standard implied a belonging. The standard was a marker that the soldiers used to keep track of where their division was. A standard also was a means of identification[2], identifying a group or division. So simply put a standard is a method to identify belonging. A standard allows soldiers to be directed as a group.
Incidentally, a standard also functions as a rally cry. A fallen standard bearer can have devastating effect on a regiment. If the standard falls, someone will often rush in and raise the standard, which can have a restorative effect on the regiment. It is important to raise a standard, and an abdication of raising a standard will have a very negative effect on the morale of a church. Let me be very clear, I DO NOT support abolishing standards. On the contrary, I fully support the use of standards.
Before I began writing this post, I read James 4:1-12 and then I reread it several times over. There is no doubt that we are fighting a war against sin and it's workings in us. The cost of abandoning a standard in this war is so staggeringly high that I don't even want to consider it. One part of me feels a heaviness, a burden, a sorrow because we don't fully understand the operation of The Standard. At the same time I also feel a joy because I know that the truth about The Standard can bring a freedom that is not evident right now. We must know how The Standard operates and why we should raise The Standard for it to have it's full import.
So what is The Standard for? Notice I'm not starting with what The Standard is. The Standard declares to the world that I belong to Christ. To what does The Standard apply? Whatever we find to do. In that last sentence, the operative word is do (Col 3:23). From the time you woke up today to the time you go to sleep, you will be doing things. The actions that we take can either draw you closer to Christ or take you further from Him. As I see it, there are two levels to our actions, and the best way to explain this is to address each of these levels separately.
The first level addresses what we do. Some actions are so direct, they either proclaim "I belong to Christ" or "I don't belong to Christ" all by themselves. Some actions are so extreme that you would have to be dense not to see their import. Imagine a man who decides to rob a bank for Jesus. Only a warped individual can legitimize the wrongness of this action in his mind. Imagine another man who donates his Saturday mornings to witness to the lost. I use extreme examples to make a point, but your everyday actions can be as simple as reaching out to someone in need, or holding a grudge in your heart against a brother. The actions you choose to take can either bring reproach to God or bring glory to God.
The second level addresses how we do things. I have seen people who wash dishes in a way that edifies Christ and I've seen people turn reading the Bible into a reproach. How we comport ourselves is just as important as what we are doing. You can do the right thing with the wrong spirit and be wrong. You can do the wrong thing with the right spirit and you are still wrong. Both levels, what we do and how we do it, must line up.
Some activities are either good or bad in and of themselves, some however are not. What color did you paint your walls? Do you drive foreign or domestic? Do your pants/skirts have pleats? Coffee or tea? The list of things that don't matter is endless. There is a place for personal preference in the choices that we make; we are not programmed automatons running through a pre-approved schedule of activities every day. These are the activities that in and of themselves are neither good nor evil. Some things really just don't matter all that much and can be left to a matter of personal taste, but religion has a tendency to focus on things that matter very little and ignore what is really important (Matt 23:23). Let me give an example.
In a Sunday morning service in Warren, I noticed that among the congregation, adult men wore the following colors of dress shirt: light gray, dark red, gray-green, pumpkin orange, and three shades of light blue. The rest of the men in the congregation and everyone on the platform were wearing white. Some churches teach a standard that says you must wear white shirts and that wearing colored shirts is a sin. Why is the color of a shirt the definition of what is holy or not? By the way that the Spirit moved in that service, I can't determine any difference based solely on their shirts. Additionally I'm sure that someone out there has found a way to wear a white shirt that is reproachful. Can the color of a shirt really defile a man? Jesus says that evil originates in the heart and it's what comes out of that that defiles a man (Mark 7:12-23).
There is also times when the circumstances play a part in what is right and what is wrong. I'm not talking about situational ethics, instead I'm addressing appropriate timing. We don't teach our children about sex until they are old enough to handle the information for a reason. When it comes to dress, perhaps it can be best explained by what I said about skirts in an earlier post. Sometimes, no matter how long the skirt is, it's not modest. We need to be wise about when, not just how we do things, and merciful in our judgments.
An over regimented dress standard can actually stand as a hindrance when blown out of proportion. Romans 12:1 admonishes us to be transformed, changed from what we were into something else, it is speaking about what conversion is. A convert is someone who has changed and is no longer what they once were, they are not merely an old creature with new rules. The power that changes us is what we need to preach to people who walk into our church doors, not immediately hit them with a statement like, your skirt/pants/sleeves/hair is/are too short. It sounds like I'm exaggerating for effect here, but I'm not; I've seen people approached at the first service they have attended and be badgered because of their clothing by overzealous saints because a dress standard has been taught as a higher priority than loving people. This isn't right. Remember what Christ said to us to: "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matt 11:30).
Additionally, some people are just using the dress standard as a disguise. They hide behind the dress standard, playing church while on the inside no change has occurred (Matt 23:25-26). You've heard the story about a tree that is rotting from the inside out. You never know that it is dying inside until it has fallen, never to rise again. The wrong teaching of any standard can and will produce similar effects, but the lives of people are so much more valuable than a tree.
Has dress has become to the Body what circumcision was to the Jews? Has the dress standard been used in a way that denies freedom in Christ much in the same way that following the law was used in the church in Galatia? Galatians 2:4 speaks of regulations that false brothers brought in with them to enslave the Galatians, and he further admonished them not to listen to them in the very next verse (Gal 2:5). How did this happen? Peter was at fault because he was worried about what Jews would think (Gal 2:11). Read the chapter yourself, it is really enlightening. I will leave my questions unanswered so that you can think about it, but I will say this. You aren't justified by what you do, you are justified by faith in Christ (Gal 2:16).
I'll butcher another old standard to show a point:
Redeemed how I love to proclaim it,
Redeemed by the things that I do.
So here's a list of rules to follow
Do them and you'll be redeemed too.
I've heard statements to the effect that if the people are free to do what they want, they will sin. I know this might be a huge wake up call here, but if people want to sin they will regardless of a dress standard, they just might not be so obvious about it. The same people who say things like this see only two options for how people can live their lives: Strict adherence to man made rules or anarchy. Neither bondage nor rebellion sound particularly appealing to me. There is a third option that it seems to me people either don't know exists, or refuse to acknowledge: responsible freedom. Sure some people define freedom as being able to do whatever they want, but that's not freedom, that's anarchy. Freedom is about being free to do the right thing, not the wrong thing. I do not advocate the abdication of personal responsibility; freedom isn't possible without it.
Am I ignoring obedience here? No, not at all. I am saying is that we need to be obedient to Christ first, then to men. We need to understand why we are doing the things we are doing, and want to do them, that's a part of proper obedience. Submission is also vital to obedience for it to mean anything. What God wants from us is our willing informed consenting obedience, nothing else will do, and I am ready to give him this. Of course I acknowledge the validity of Heb 13:17, but at the same time if I were to do something wrong because I was submitting myself to someone, that would not absolve my guilt in the situation.
Every action we take can either bind us to or separate us from Jesus. This way is not easy, but it is worth it. We have a promise that if we want to be bound to Him and seek that out, nothing can separate us from the His love (Rom 8:35-39) or maybe a better way to understand this last phrase is nothing can separate His love from us. A person to whom Jesus is bound in this way does not need a list of rules so that he will walk a narrow way, he is walking a narrow way. We have the wrong focus of what Christianity is if we think it has anything to do with what we do anyway. We are vessels of his goodness, not our goodness, that is the difference between righteousness and self-righteousness. Christianity is ultimately about what Christ did and does for us. That's what separates it from man-made religion.
So is The Standard important? Yes. Is it more important than what Christ does in us? No. Remember, we are all mirrors, reflecting the wonderful grace of Christ by the operation of His grace in us. Certainly we want to keep our mirrors clean so that when people see us they see Jesus, but the truth of the matter is that our primary task is to make sure our mirrors, our lives point to Christ. What use is a mirror, no matter how clean, if it reflects us instead of Christ?
In closing, I want to address teaching The Standard to our children as this is something that concerns every parent and that I have often heard question. Actually not much needs to be said, merely this: Teach your children to really love Jesus and that He really loves them, and they will love The Standard. Teach them that loving Jesus is following a dress standard, and they will resent that standard.
References:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquila_(Roman)
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldic_standard
What is a standard? Historically, a standard was a type of military flag that was hoisted up on a pole above the troops that belonged to a particular division. In ancient Rome, the Aquila[1] was the standard that the Roman army flew. This type of standard implied a belonging. The standard was a marker that the soldiers used to keep track of where their division was. A standard also was a means of identification[2], identifying a group or division. So simply put a standard is a method to identify belonging. A standard allows soldiers to be directed as a group.
Incidentally, a standard also functions as a rally cry. A fallen standard bearer can have devastating effect on a regiment. If the standard falls, someone will often rush in and raise the standard, which can have a restorative effect on the regiment. It is important to raise a standard, and an abdication of raising a standard will have a very negative effect on the morale of a church. Let me be very clear, I DO NOT support abolishing standards. On the contrary, I fully support the use of standards.
Before I began writing this post, I read James 4:1-12 and then I reread it several times over. There is no doubt that we are fighting a war against sin and it's workings in us. The cost of abandoning a standard in this war is so staggeringly high that I don't even want to consider it. One part of me feels a heaviness, a burden, a sorrow because we don't fully understand the operation of The Standard. At the same time I also feel a joy because I know that the truth about The Standard can bring a freedom that is not evident right now. We must know how The Standard operates and why we should raise The Standard for it to have it's full import.
So what is The Standard for? Notice I'm not starting with what The Standard is. The Standard declares to the world that I belong to Christ. To what does The Standard apply? Whatever we find to do. In that last sentence, the operative word is do (Col 3:23). From the time you woke up today to the time you go to sleep, you will be doing things. The actions that we take can either draw you closer to Christ or take you further from Him. As I see it, there are two levels to our actions, and the best way to explain this is to address each of these levels separately.
The first level addresses what we do. Some actions are so direct, they either proclaim "I belong to Christ" or "I don't belong to Christ" all by themselves. Some actions are so extreme that you would have to be dense not to see their import. Imagine a man who decides to rob a bank for Jesus. Only a warped individual can legitimize the wrongness of this action in his mind. Imagine another man who donates his Saturday mornings to witness to the lost. I use extreme examples to make a point, but your everyday actions can be as simple as reaching out to someone in need, or holding a grudge in your heart against a brother. The actions you choose to take can either bring reproach to God or bring glory to God.
The second level addresses how we do things. I have seen people who wash dishes in a way that edifies Christ and I've seen people turn reading the Bible into a reproach. How we comport ourselves is just as important as what we are doing. You can do the right thing with the wrong spirit and be wrong. You can do the wrong thing with the right spirit and you are still wrong. Both levels, what we do and how we do it, must line up.
Some activities are either good or bad in and of themselves, some however are not. What color did you paint your walls? Do you drive foreign or domestic? Do your pants/skirts have pleats? Coffee or tea? The list of things that don't matter is endless. There is a place for personal preference in the choices that we make; we are not programmed automatons running through a pre-approved schedule of activities every day. These are the activities that in and of themselves are neither good nor evil. Some things really just don't matter all that much and can be left to a matter of personal taste, but religion has a tendency to focus on things that matter very little and ignore what is really important (Matt 23:23). Let me give an example.
In a Sunday morning service in Warren, I noticed that among the congregation, adult men wore the following colors of dress shirt: light gray, dark red, gray-green, pumpkin orange, and three shades of light blue. The rest of the men in the congregation and everyone on the platform were wearing white. Some churches teach a standard that says you must wear white shirts and that wearing colored shirts is a sin. Why is the color of a shirt the definition of what is holy or not? By the way that the Spirit moved in that service, I can't determine any difference based solely on their shirts. Additionally I'm sure that someone out there has found a way to wear a white shirt that is reproachful. Can the color of a shirt really defile a man? Jesus says that evil originates in the heart and it's what comes out of that that defiles a man (Mark 7:12-23).
There is also times when the circumstances play a part in what is right and what is wrong. I'm not talking about situational ethics, instead I'm addressing appropriate timing. We don't teach our children about sex until they are old enough to handle the information for a reason. When it comes to dress, perhaps it can be best explained by what I said about skirts in an earlier post. Sometimes, no matter how long the skirt is, it's not modest. We need to be wise about when, not just how we do things, and merciful in our judgments.
An over regimented dress standard can actually stand as a hindrance when blown out of proportion. Romans 12:1 admonishes us to be transformed, changed from what we were into something else, it is speaking about what conversion is. A convert is someone who has changed and is no longer what they once were, they are not merely an old creature with new rules. The power that changes us is what we need to preach to people who walk into our church doors, not immediately hit them with a statement like, your skirt/pants/sleeves/hair is/are too short. It sounds like I'm exaggerating for effect here, but I'm not; I've seen people approached at the first service they have attended and be badgered because of their clothing by overzealous saints because a dress standard has been taught as a higher priority than loving people. This isn't right. Remember what Christ said to us to: "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matt 11:30).
Additionally, some people are just using the dress standard as a disguise. They hide behind the dress standard, playing church while on the inside no change has occurred (Matt 23:25-26). You've heard the story about a tree that is rotting from the inside out. You never know that it is dying inside until it has fallen, never to rise again. The wrong teaching of any standard can and will produce similar effects, but the lives of people are so much more valuable than a tree.
Has dress has become to the Body what circumcision was to the Jews? Has the dress standard been used in a way that denies freedom in Christ much in the same way that following the law was used in the church in Galatia? Galatians 2:4 speaks of regulations that false brothers brought in with them to enslave the Galatians, and he further admonished them not to listen to them in the very next verse (Gal 2:5). How did this happen? Peter was at fault because he was worried about what Jews would think (Gal 2:11). Read the chapter yourself, it is really enlightening. I will leave my questions unanswered so that you can think about it, but I will say this. You aren't justified by what you do, you are justified by faith in Christ (Gal 2:16).
I'll butcher another old standard to show a point:
Redeemed how I love to proclaim it,
Redeemed by the things that I do.
So here's a list of rules to follow
Do them and you'll be redeemed too.
I've heard statements to the effect that if the people are free to do what they want, they will sin. I know this might be a huge wake up call here, but if people want to sin they will regardless of a dress standard, they just might not be so obvious about it. The same people who say things like this see only two options for how people can live their lives: Strict adherence to man made rules or anarchy. Neither bondage nor rebellion sound particularly appealing to me. There is a third option that it seems to me people either don't know exists, or refuse to acknowledge: responsible freedom. Sure some people define freedom as being able to do whatever they want, but that's not freedom, that's anarchy. Freedom is about being free to do the right thing, not the wrong thing. I do not advocate the abdication of personal responsibility; freedom isn't possible without it.
Am I ignoring obedience here? No, not at all. I am saying is that we need to be obedient to Christ first, then to men. We need to understand why we are doing the things we are doing, and want to do them, that's a part of proper obedience. Submission is also vital to obedience for it to mean anything. What God wants from us is our willing informed consenting obedience, nothing else will do, and I am ready to give him this. Of course I acknowledge the validity of Heb 13:17, but at the same time if I were to do something wrong because I was submitting myself to someone, that would not absolve my guilt in the situation.
Every action we take can either bind us to or separate us from Jesus. This way is not easy, but it is worth it. We have a promise that if we want to be bound to Him and seek that out, nothing can separate us from the His love (Rom 8:35-39) or maybe a better way to understand this last phrase is nothing can separate His love from us. A person to whom Jesus is bound in this way does not need a list of rules so that he will walk a narrow way, he is walking a narrow way. We have the wrong focus of what Christianity is if we think it has anything to do with what we do anyway. We are vessels of his goodness, not our goodness, that is the difference between righteousness and self-righteousness. Christianity is ultimately about what Christ did and does for us. That's what separates it from man-made religion.
So is The Standard important? Yes. Is it more important than what Christ does in us? No. Remember, we are all mirrors, reflecting the wonderful grace of Christ by the operation of His grace in us. Certainly we want to keep our mirrors clean so that when people see us they see Jesus, but the truth of the matter is that our primary task is to make sure our mirrors, our lives point to Christ. What use is a mirror, no matter how clean, if it reflects us instead of Christ?
In closing, I want to address teaching The Standard to our children as this is something that concerns every parent and that I have often heard question. Actually not much needs to be said, merely this: Teach your children to really love Jesus and that He really loves them, and they will love The Standard. Teach them that loving Jesus is following a dress standard, and they will resent that standard.
References:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquila_(Roman)
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldic_standard
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
I See That I Need to Clarify
I find that I'm either being misrepresented or misunderstood. Either way, I mean this post to be a means of clarification.
Some words and phrases take on a additional meaning when they are used in a way that does not express the proper meaning of that word. Linguists call this slang and jargon, though I've always said that we color our words with meaning, because even the term slang is often not completely understood. When we color our words, we give them added meaning that the words themselves don't actually convey. People do this all the time; we as a group have our own jargon. The terms press in, threshing floor, the body and even the word meeting have a special meaning to us. Most of the time it's just a shortcut to expressing a more complicated idea, sometimes it is not.
The "Man of God"[1] was a title of respect used in the Old Testament to describe a prophet or a beloved religious leader [2]. However, I've heard a different use being made of it. There are some in our group that use this term in a similar fashion as the term "Vicar of Christ". Merriam-Webster defines a vicar as "one serving as a substitute or agent"[3]. Wikipedia describes a vicar as "one who represents another and acts as a steward, administering the position in lieu of the true sovereign"[4]. The way some in our group uses the phrase "Man of God" implies that a man is the head of a church in lieu of Christ, and denies Christ's headship. When the first impulse when dealing with just about any issue is to go to the "Man of God", I ask myself did you think to pray? We have become dependent on our ministers, seeking their guidance and approval for every little thing when they are only men who have been given gifts from God to help us, not to live our lives for us. Israel wanted an inferior order and God was willing to give it to them (1 Sam 8:7). If we insist on making our pastors the head of men instead of Christ (1 Cor 11:3), I have a suspicion that God will allow us to do just that. We use the "Man of God" as a Jesus substitute, and I personally refuse to use a term that promotes a substitute over the real thing. More than a lesson in grammar needs to be taught to fix this issue.
A fellow blogger has written of this topic in more detail when the situation I'm talking about has advanced to abusive and controlling, and I suggest you read what he has to say here: http://shaneclifford.blogspot.com/2009/08/i-find-that-it-is-very-arrogant-and.html
The next question I ask myself is has my challenge been accepted? I don't think so, but I'm not absolutely sure. Simply put, I espouse a viewpoint that we do not reach a point where we cannot be tempted, Bro. Dyal holds a viewpoint that we can reach a point where we are above temptation [5]. Paul in Romans 7:17-25 states that sin dwelt within him. When he wanted to do good, evil was present in him. Pay special attention to Romans 7:23. There's something inside us that wars against us, trying to bring us into captivity to the sinful nature that is within us. I believe in overcoming sin, but not when it contravenes Jesus' forgiveness, or when it contradicts scripture.
So once again, I ask someone who is sinless, incapable of sinning to step up and identify themselves, or better yet, if you know someone who is in this state, point them out. If you want to argue semantics, then instead show me a person who is beyond temptation. Is this too much to ask? Instead are we to be distracted by pointing out the difference in syntax between sinful overcomers and sinners overcoming? Redirection is not a valid way to answer this question. If you want to see some people in the church that haven't reached perfection yet, I'll point a few of them out to you, starting with me. I just ask you to point out one person who is beyond the possibility of sin. Without proof, this teaching of perfection as being beyond the capability of being tempted to sin is just a theory.
Addressing a additional issue, there is a problem with using analogies in an explanation because they are limited in their use. I will use an analogy to illustrate a point, but not to prove it. Whether we use an example of being addicted to alcohol or nicotine, the fact of the matter is we are actually talking about a larger issue here, sin, or the total lack thereof. Illustrations are good, but only to a point, and not when misused [6].
Bro. Dyal states "We are not earning our salvation; we are abiding in it unto full salvation." I agree with him fully that we are not earning our salvation, but you see, the way salvation is taught has caused more than a few people to think that they are earning it. A reliance on a regimented set of standards, an improper understanding of the ministry and a downplaying of the grace of God after conversion has caused people to think that that is exactly what they are doing. For some reason we as a group see salvation as an up-to-now event, and I've never been able to figure out why. It shouldn't be this way, but it seems to me at least that is the way that some people see it.
"Some think that a loose fellowship hinging on anarchy and mob rule will bring about proper judgment and order"[7]. I question exactly what is being said here. Is acknowledging Christ as our head the same thing as anarchy and mob rule? Isn't this one of the foundations upon which we are established? What I believe in is accountability, not anarchy. To infer otherwise puts words in my mouth.
"Some think that all men should be of equal authority and say in all things, and that every man has the God given right to do what is right in his own eyes[7]" Why do we spend so much time defending our authority, where Christ's emphasis was on service and not on authority (Mark 10:42-46)? Is the administration of authority the true calling of the ministry? Don't we recognize Christ's authority and also, can God not lead his children?
"It is my desire that we see the Lord, to do so we must purify ourselves even as He is pure, 1 John 3:1-3. We can do it because He said we could. To do it we must with broken hearts and contrite spirits humble ourselves and pray"[7]. Through Christ are our sins removed because in Him there was no sin (1 John 3:4-5). It's through Christ that we are pure, not through ourselves. Forgiveness cleanses us, not a sanctified life. You've got sanctity on the wrong side of the equation:
Our Sin + Jesus Death + Forgiveness = Redemption, Sanctification & Purity
Our Purity + Contrite Spirits + Humility + Prayer = Not much if Jesus isn't involved.
"So this is the thought that I offer to those who criticize, disdain, and complain
Don't bother yourself to visit this blog site, From your sight do it refrain"[8]. We will always have to deal with criticism, disdain and complaint when we are working for the Lord. We must expect it. Asking your critics to ignore you will not work, is naive and is probably in actuality just asking for the opposite. The author Elbert Hubbard said this about criticism: "To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing."
Reference:
[1] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/of.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_God
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vicar
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar_of_Christ
[5] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/oxymoron.html
[6] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/shadows.html
[7] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/it-is-my-desire.html
[8] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/conundrum.html
Some words and phrases take on a additional meaning when they are used in a way that does not express the proper meaning of that word. Linguists call this slang and jargon, though I've always said that we color our words with meaning, because even the term slang is often not completely understood. When we color our words, we give them added meaning that the words themselves don't actually convey. People do this all the time; we as a group have our own jargon. The terms press in, threshing floor, the body and even the word meeting have a special meaning to us. Most of the time it's just a shortcut to expressing a more complicated idea, sometimes it is not.
The "Man of God"[1] was a title of respect used in the Old Testament to describe a prophet or a beloved religious leader [2]. However, I've heard a different use being made of it. There are some in our group that use this term in a similar fashion as the term "Vicar of Christ". Merriam-Webster defines a vicar as "one serving as a substitute or agent"[3]. Wikipedia describes a vicar as "one who represents another and acts as a steward, administering the position in lieu of the true sovereign"[4]. The way some in our group uses the phrase "Man of God" implies that a man is the head of a church in lieu of Christ, and denies Christ's headship. When the first impulse when dealing with just about any issue is to go to the "Man of God", I ask myself did you think to pray? We have become dependent on our ministers, seeking their guidance and approval for every little thing when they are only men who have been given gifts from God to help us, not to live our lives for us. Israel wanted an inferior order and God was willing to give it to them (1 Sam 8:7). If we insist on making our pastors the head of men instead of Christ (1 Cor 11:3), I have a suspicion that God will allow us to do just that. We use the "Man of God" as a Jesus substitute, and I personally refuse to use a term that promotes a substitute over the real thing. More than a lesson in grammar needs to be taught to fix this issue.
A fellow blogger has written of this topic in more detail when the situation I'm talking about has advanced to abusive and controlling, and I suggest you read what he has to say here: http://shaneclifford.blogspot.com/2009/08/i-find-that-it-is-very-arrogant-and.html
The next question I ask myself is has my challenge been accepted? I don't think so, but I'm not absolutely sure. Simply put, I espouse a viewpoint that we do not reach a point where we cannot be tempted, Bro. Dyal holds a viewpoint that we can reach a point where we are above temptation [5]. Paul in Romans 7:17-25 states that sin dwelt within him. When he wanted to do good, evil was present in him. Pay special attention to Romans 7:23. There's something inside us that wars against us, trying to bring us into captivity to the sinful nature that is within us. I believe in overcoming sin, but not when it contravenes Jesus' forgiveness, or when it contradicts scripture.
So once again, I ask someone who is sinless, incapable of sinning to step up and identify themselves, or better yet, if you know someone who is in this state, point them out. If you want to argue semantics, then instead show me a person who is beyond temptation. Is this too much to ask? Instead are we to be distracted by pointing out the difference in syntax between sinful overcomers and sinners overcoming? Redirection is not a valid way to answer this question. If you want to see some people in the church that haven't reached perfection yet, I'll point a few of them out to you, starting with me. I just ask you to point out one person who is beyond the possibility of sin. Without proof, this teaching of perfection as being beyond the capability of being tempted to sin is just a theory.
Addressing a additional issue, there is a problem with using analogies in an explanation because they are limited in their use. I will use an analogy to illustrate a point, but not to prove it. Whether we use an example of being addicted to alcohol or nicotine, the fact of the matter is we are actually talking about a larger issue here, sin, or the total lack thereof. Illustrations are good, but only to a point, and not when misused [6].
Bro. Dyal states "We are not earning our salvation; we are abiding in it unto full salvation." I agree with him fully that we are not earning our salvation, but you see, the way salvation is taught has caused more than a few people to think that they are earning it. A reliance on a regimented set of standards, an improper understanding of the ministry and a downplaying of the grace of God after conversion has caused people to think that that is exactly what they are doing. For some reason we as a group see salvation as an up-to-now event, and I've never been able to figure out why. It shouldn't be this way, but it seems to me at least that is the way that some people see it.
"Some think that a loose fellowship hinging on anarchy and mob rule will bring about proper judgment and order"[7]. I question exactly what is being said here. Is acknowledging Christ as our head the same thing as anarchy and mob rule? Isn't this one of the foundations upon which we are established? What I believe in is accountability, not anarchy. To infer otherwise puts words in my mouth.
"Some think that all men should be of equal authority and say in all things, and that every man has the God given right to do what is right in his own eyes[7]" Why do we spend so much time defending our authority, where Christ's emphasis was on service and not on authority (Mark 10:42-46)? Is the administration of authority the true calling of the ministry? Don't we recognize Christ's authority and also, can God not lead his children?
"It is my desire that we see the Lord, to do so we must purify ourselves even as He is pure, 1 John 3:1-3. We can do it because He said we could. To do it we must with broken hearts and contrite spirits humble ourselves and pray"[7]. Through Christ are our sins removed because in Him there was no sin (1 John 3:4-5). It's through Christ that we are pure, not through ourselves. Forgiveness cleanses us, not a sanctified life. You've got sanctity on the wrong side of the equation:
Our Sin + Jesus Death + Forgiveness = Redemption, Sanctification & Purity
Our Purity + Contrite Spirits + Humility + Prayer = Not much if Jesus isn't involved.
"So this is the thought that I offer to those who criticize, disdain, and complain
Don't bother yourself to visit this blog site, From your sight do it refrain"[8]. We will always have to deal with criticism, disdain and complaint when we are working for the Lord. We must expect it. Asking your critics to ignore you will not work, is naive and is probably in actuality just asking for the opposite. The author Elbert Hubbard said this about criticism: "To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing."
Reference:
[1] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/of.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_God
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vicar
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar_of_Christ
[5] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/oxymoron.html
[6] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/shadows.html
[7] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/it-is-my-desire.html
[8] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/conundrum.html
Sunday, October 25, 2009
What Happens When We Die?
Why this doctrine is such a big deal has always been a mystery to me. Specifically speaking what happens to us after we die, but before the dead in Christ rise (1 Thess 4:16). I've heard two main schools on this subject taught in our group: 1. Soul sleep and 2. Moving out a live soul. I'm not an expert on either of these two doctrines nor am I aware of all of the variations of each of them, so I'm forced to speak about each of them in generalities, or layman's terms if you will.
Soul sleep infers that when you die, it's as if someone out there hit the pause button of your existence. The rest of the world goes on without you, but you are not conscious in any way of anything that is going on until the resurrection. As an example, I've been listening to the camp meeting archives on my computer at work when I can, and the length of the services necessitate that I pause them frequently. One service may take me a couple days to get through, and often I will even leave the service paused overnight only to come back the next morning and pick up right where I left off. This is a good analogy to understand what is meant by soul sleep. The length of time that I leave this paused is irrelevant to the playing of the service.
Moving out a live soul has been taught in our churches as when you die, you immediately jump ahead to the resurrection. The best analogy I can think of is the "Go to Jail" card in the game Monopoly. Stick with me here for a second, but when you land on chance and get this card, you go directly to jail, you skip everything else. Moving out a live soul can almost be though of as landing on chance and getting a "Rise to meet Him in the air" card, do not go to the grave or wait around for something else to happen. The thought is that when you die, you are immediately skipped ahead without any tedious waiting.
There is another doctrine popular in the non-protestant denominations. Purgatory is, for lack of a better term, God's waiting room. This is like the time that you spend between taking a test at school and when your professor finally gets around to posting your score. The only sources for this doctrine are extra-Biblical, so it simply exists as a curious fiction to me.
So much seems to be made of this doctrine and I guess that is because people are concerned about what happens to them when they die. I've always just held to the thought that if God is in control of my life, he doesn't cease to be in control when I die. There is a tendency we have to assume that God is bound to the limitations that we are bound with. This could not be farther from the truth. God isn't restricted in how He does things. We worry about what happens with the intervening time, as if God somehow isn't up to the challenge. It is a limited understanding and a lack of faith on our part that caused us to need these doctrines. They function as a pacifier, and if you really need one of those, I guess that's OK, but the point is we shouldn't need them. To me this is a doctrine of lesser importance than many of the other doctrines that we teach, but still much division and controversy seems to be placed between these two schools, so that's why I am addressing it.
I'll start by asking the following question: On a personal level, what is the difference between soul sleep where you are not aware of the passage of time until the resurrection or moving out a live soul where you skip over the intervening time and just show up at the resurrection. In both teachings the next moment of awareness that you experience after you die is when you are resurrected. In that manner, both beliefs are right.
Bro. William Waters taught this doctrine in a different way. He stated that time is like a box, only applicable to human existence. When we end our human existence, we are taken out of that box and time no longer applies. On initial inspection I'm sure that this can sound strange. This is a well thought out argument and worthy of consideration. Simply put, the way God works isn't hampered by time the way we are. I agree with the thought that time is a limited thing and that it will be done away with, this just applies that on a personal level.
Going back to the personal level, how does this differ from either of the two main schools. It still remains that the next moment of awareness that you experience after you die is when you are resurrected. So far this seems to be a matter of semantics.
I've spent some time on this though and this time after you die and before you rise isn't really a mystery. I've experienced something like this already, in fact everyone has. Tell me about the time before you were born. You might say something like, "I wasn't alive yet, how can I tell you about that time?" Same here. The state of not being alive is pretty irrelevant to me. So here's how I put this together: After I die, but am not risen in Christ yet, I figure that I'm not alive. So if you put it that way and just say that any time that I'm not alive is irrelevant, then this whole doctrine becomes irrelevant.
So there you have it. Soul sleep, moving out a live soul, leaving time, or just plain irrelevant, those are the options you have for this doctrine. To me your life and life after death are so much more important that it's hardly worth going into this discussion in any depth at all. I hope you see why I feel that way.
Soul sleep infers that when you die, it's as if someone out there hit the pause button of your existence. The rest of the world goes on without you, but you are not conscious in any way of anything that is going on until the resurrection. As an example, I've been listening to the camp meeting archives on my computer at work when I can, and the length of the services necessitate that I pause them frequently. One service may take me a couple days to get through, and often I will even leave the service paused overnight only to come back the next morning and pick up right where I left off. This is a good analogy to understand what is meant by soul sleep. The length of time that I leave this paused is irrelevant to the playing of the service.
Moving out a live soul has been taught in our churches as when you die, you immediately jump ahead to the resurrection. The best analogy I can think of is the "Go to Jail" card in the game Monopoly. Stick with me here for a second, but when you land on chance and get this card, you go directly to jail, you skip everything else. Moving out a live soul can almost be though of as landing on chance and getting a "Rise to meet Him in the air" card, do not go to the grave or wait around for something else to happen. The thought is that when you die, you are immediately skipped ahead without any tedious waiting.
There is another doctrine popular in the non-protestant denominations. Purgatory is, for lack of a better term, God's waiting room. This is like the time that you spend between taking a test at school and when your professor finally gets around to posting your score. The only sources for this doctrine are extra-Biblical, so it simply exists as a curious fiction to me.
So much seems to be made of this doctrine and I guess that is because people are concerned about what happens to them when they die. I've always just held to the thought that if God is in control of my life, he doesn't cease to be in control when I die. There is a tendency we have to assume that God is bound to the limitations that we are bound with. This could not be farther from the truth. God isn't restricted in how He does things. We worry about what happens with the intervening time, as if God somehow isn't up to the challenge. It is a limited understanding and a lack of faith on our part that caused us to need these doctrines. They function as a pacifier, and if you really need one of those, I guess that's OK, but the point is we shouldn't need them. To me this is a doctrine of lesser importance than many of the other doctrines that we teach, but still much division and controversy seems to be placed between these two schools, so that's why I am addressing it.
I'll start by asking the following question: On a personal level, what is the difference between soul sleep where you are not aware of the passage of time until the resurrection or moving out a live soul where you skip over the intervening time and just show up at the resurrection. In both teachings the next moment of awareness that you experience after you die is when you are resurrected. In that manner, both beliefs are right.
Bro. William Waters taught this doctrine in a different way. He stated that time is like a box, only applicable to human existence. When we end our human existence, we are taken out of that box and time no longer applies. On initial inspection I'm sure that this can sound strange. This is a well thought out argument and worthy of consideration. Simply put, the way God works isn't hampered by time the way we are. I agree with the thought that time is a limited thing and that it will be done away with, this just applies that on a personal level.
Going back to the personal level, how does this differ from either of the two main schools. It still remains that the next moment of awareness that you experience after you die is when you are resurrected. So far this seems to be a matter of semantics.
I've spent some time on this though and this time after you die and before you rise isn't really a mystery. I've experienced something like this already, in fact everyone has. Tell me about the time before you were born. You might say something like, "I wasn't alive yet, how can I tell you about that time?" Same here. The state of not being alive is pretty irrelevant to me. So here's how I put this together: After I die, but am not risen in Christ yet, I figure that I'm not alive. So if you put it that way and just say that any time that I'm not alive is irrelevant, then this whole doctrine becomes irrelevant.
So there you have it. Soul sleep, moving out a live soul, leaving time, or just plain irrelevant, those are the options you have for this doctrine. To me your life and life after death are so much more important that it's hardly worth going into this discussion in any depth at all. I hope you see why I feel that way.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Being Proud vs. Being Prideful
There is a common misunderstanding about the sin of pride. This is due to an inadequacy in the modern English language and changes that have happened with the meaning of the word pride over the centuries.
Being proud of someone because of an action that they have accomplished is not sinful. If your child wins a race or has a perfect score on their math test, you should be a proud parent. If they make wise decisions and perform good actions, you should be proud of them. We all know this, it's natural for a parent. You can apply this to yourself as well. If you have done something praiseworthy why couldn't you feel proud of yourself for that? Why would this be sinful?
Would it surprise you to know that our Heavenly Father is proud of us? Jesus tells a story of what Heaven is like in Mat 25:14-46. When in Mat 25:21, the lord says "Well done thou good and faithful servant..." can't you hear the pride that a master has in his good servant? It's as if he said I am so proud of what you've done. Imagine yourself being judged and God were to say to you "Well done thou good and faithful servant..." or if He were to say to you "I am so proud of you" what would be the difference in how you felt?
The sin of pride can better be stated in Modern English as the sin of superiority. The sin of superiority is merely feeling that you are better than someone else because of something. I'm better than my wife because I am the man and the head of my household. I'm better than Bro. so-and-so because they sin. I'm better because I have the truth when it comes to doctrine. It doesn't matter why you feel better than someone else, the fact that you do is a sin. Why is it a sin? Because you attribute the gifts of God to yourself and not to God.
Jesus says something about having to high a regard of yourself (Matt 6:27). In Job 38, the Lord takes Job down a peg and pretty much asks the question "Who do you think you are?" Prov 8:13 lumps pride and arrogance together. It is arrogance and a feeling of superiority that we need to be wary of. This is the sin of pride.
The problem is that I have heard people talk about someone whom they are proud of, say a good thing that they have done and even say that they are proud, then say that they know being proud is a sin. Is this what we are being taught pride is? If so, and I think this is the case, are we ignoring the true issue here? At least in one instance I believe so.
I've also heard some of the same people as I mentioned above state that they are part of "The Body" as if they are better than any other Christian not a part of our group. The arrogance inherent in this is awful. It is human nature for you to think that a movement you belong to is the best because you are involved in it. I believe our group is special because God has laid his hand on us, nothing more. I believe that if God moved his hand away, we would cease to have that special covering. This is one of the reasons that when I am writing I prefer not to use the term "The Body" and instead use the phrase "our group" because of the tendency of some in our group to focus on The Body instead of The Head.
Also, we use the term Babylon much too frequently and too loosely. Within it's meaning it contains an implication that the Christians we are referring to are not as good as we are. There is very little humility in this name, for even though I believe it is accurate that we have been called out of for a purpose, it was not we who did the calling out, it was God. Is arrogance rearing it's ugly head again?
I would like to apply Luke 18:10-14 to our situation: Two men went up into the church to pray; the one was from a Body church, and the other was from the church world. The Body saint stood and prayed thus with himself, God, "I thank thee, that I am not as other Christians are, organized, mired in false doctrine, carnally minded, or even as this Babylonian. I go to church four times a week, I speak in tongues so I have the Holy Ghost. And the Babylonian, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
The term Babylon is used exactly twelve times in eleven scriptures in the New Testament, six times in Revelation and six times in other books. Every place other than Revelation, it is used to refer to the ancient kingdom that the children of Israel were carried away to; it is merely reference to a historical city. In Revelation it depends on your understanding of eschatology(the study of the end times) whether you see Babylon in Revelation as false religion or a natural kingdom, I've heard both taught but I don't want to get into that right here. Either way I see that Babylon as not having come to completion as of yet. I wouldn't argue with someone who wanted to say that beginnings of that Babylon are evident today but that Babylon hasn't come to fruition in it's final state.
Whether it's Biblical to use the term Babylon to refer to all of Christendom I question, but I understand that we are using it to describe false religion. Actually, I'm alright with that description, however we apply it on a personal level and that is just plain wrong. Remember
Rev 18:4 infers that even within the false religion Babylon dwell some of God's people. God calls them out of that right then and there, so I submit that instead of looking at Christians as those who have been called out and those who haven't, we should should be looking at Christians as those who have been called out already, and those who have yet to be called out. To do otherwise is to let our arrogance do harm to these people of God who are not of our group and wound our own reputation in the process. We don't make the call who is and who is not a child of God, to think otherwise is the height of arrogance, a spiritual superiority complex, or translated back in the KJV, pride.
All of God's People are God's People. It doesn't matter from which church they originate, if God claims them they are my brother and sister. What an opportunity we have to share with others something special God has put in our lives when we do this. Why wouldn't we want to do this? Isn't this pride and maybe jealousy? Do we want to hold on to our specialness so fiercely that we are willing to cut others off to hold onto it? How sad. This is what Paul addressed in 1 Cor 1:12-13, just in another form. Paul states the truth of the matter in 1 Cor 3:6 and in 1 Cor 3:9 where he tells once again who is really in control, God. God gave the increase and we are His husbandry, His building, not the product of a man or a movement, even when a man or a movement has been given a special dispensation. See, a man or a movement can never be more than a temporary thing, but Christ is from eternal to eternal. Put your trust and your focus on Jesus and take it off of a man or movement and this pride will just fall away (Matt 16:33).
Now I know that some or most of what I've said here will most likely be twisted so that it seems that I am attacking our group of people. This is categorically not true. I believe we as a group have been called out, and are a special people. I am not denouncing the body of Christ, far from it. It's the arrogance that casts aside the work of Christ in anyone not of our group that I am denouncing. To say or infer otherwise is no more than an outright falsehood. What will eventually happen to those who spread falsehoods this way is that they will become what they fear (Jer 13:24-25).
References:
Babylon in the NT: Mat 1:11, Mat1:12, Matt 1:17, Acts7:43, 1 Pet 5:13, Rev 14:8, Rev 16:19, Rev 17:5, Rev 18:2, Rev 18:10, Rev 18:21.
Being proud of someone because of an action that they have accomplished is not sinful. If your child wins a race or has a perfect score on their math test, you should be a proud parent. If they make wise decisions and perform good actions, you should be proud of them. We all know this, it's natural for a parent. You can apply this to yourself as well. If you have done something praiseworthy why couldn't you feel proud of yourself for that? Why would this be sinful?
Would it surprise you to know that our Heavenly Father is proud of us? Jesus tells a story of what Heaven is like in Mat 25:14-46. When in Mat 25:21, the lord says "Well done thou good and faithful servant..." can't you hear the pride that a master has in his good servant? It's as if he said I am so proud of what you've done. Imagine yourself being judged and God were to say to you "Well done thou good and faithful servant..." or if He were to say to you "I am so proud of you" what would be the difference in how you felt?
The sin of pride can better be stated in Modern English as the sin of superiority. The sin of superiority is merely feeling that you are better than someone else because of something. I'm better than my wife because I am the man and the head of my household. I'm better than Bro. so-and-so because they sin. I'm better because I have the truth when it comes to doctrine. It doesn't matter why you feel better than someone else, the fact that you do is a sin. Why is it a sin? Because you attribute the gifts of God to yourself and not to God.
Jesus says something about having to high a regard of yourself (Matt 6:27). In Job 38, the Lord takes Job down a peg and pretty much asks the question "Who do you think you are?" Prov 8:13 lumps pride and arrogance together. It is arrogance and a feeling of superiority that we need to be wary of. This is the sin of pride.
The problem is that I have heard people talk about someone whom they are proud of, say a good thing that they have done and even say that they are proud, then say that they know being proud is a sin. Is this what we are being taught pride is? If so, and I think this is the case, are we ignoring the true issue here? At least in one instance I believe so.
I've also heard some of the same people as I mentioned above state that they are part of "The Body" as if they are better than any other Christian not a part of our group. The arrogance inherent in this is awful. It is human nature for you to think that a movement you belong to is the best because you are involved in it. I believe our group is special because God has laid his hand on us, nothing more. I believe that if God moved his hand away, we would cease to have that special covering. This is one of the reasons that when I am writing I prefer not to use the term "The Body" and instead use the phrase "our group" because of the tendency of some in our group to focus on The Body instead of The Head.
Also, we use the term Babylon much too frequently and too loosely. Within it's meaning it contains an implication that the Christians we are referring to are not as good as we are. There is very little humility in this name, for even though I believe it is accurate that we have been called out of for a purpose, it was not we who did the calling out, it was God. Is arrogance rearing it's ugly head again?
I would like to apply Luke 18:10-14 to our situation: Two men went up into the church to pray; the one was from a Body church, and the other was from the church world. The Body saint stood and prayed thus with himself, God, "I thank thee, that I am not as other Christians are, organized, mired in false doctrine, carnally minded, or even as this Babylonian. I go to church four times a week, I speak in tongues so I have the Holy Ghost. And the Babylonian, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
The term Babylon is used exactly twelve times in eleven scriptures in the New Testament, six times in Revelation and six times in other books. Every place other than Revelation, it is used to refer to the ancient kingdom that the children of Israel were carried away to; it is merely reference to a historical city. In Revelation it depends on your understanding of eschatology(the study of the end times) whether you see Babylon in Revelation as false religion or a natural kingdom, I've heard both taught but I don't want to get into that right here. Either way I see that Babylon as not having come to completion as of yet. I wouldn't argue with someone who wanted to say that beginnings of that Babylon are evident today but that Babylon hasn't come to fruition in it's final state.
Whether it's Biblical to use the term Babylon to refer to all of Christendom I question, but I understand that we are using it to describe false religion. Actually, I'm alright with that description, however we apply it on a personal level and that is just plain wrong. Remember
Rev 18:4 infers that even within the false religion Babylon dwell some of God's people. God calls them out of that right then and there, so I submit that instead of looking at Christians as those who have been called out and those who haven't, we should should be looking at Christians as those who have been called out already, and those who have yet to be called out. To do otherwise is to let our arrogance do harm to these people of God who are not of our group and wound our own reputation in the process. We don't make the call who is and who is not a child of God, to think otherwise is the height of arrogance, a spiritual superiority complex, or translated back in the KJV, pride.
All of God's People are God's People. It doesn't matter from which church they originate, if God claims them they are my brother and sister. What an opportunity we have to share with others something special God has put in our lives when we do this. Why wouldn't we want to do this? Isn't this pride and maybe jealousy? Do we want to hold on to our specialness so fiercely that we are willing to cut others off to hold onto it? How sad. This is what Paul addressed in 1 Cor 1:12-13, just in another form. Paul states the truth of the matter in 1 Cor 3:6 and in 1 Cor 3:9 where he tells once again who is really in control, God. God gave the increase and we are His husbandry, His building, not the product of a man or a movement, even when a man or a movement has been given a special dispensation. See, a man or a movement can never be more than a temporary thing, but Christ is from eternal to eternal. Put your trust and your focus on Jesus and take it off of a man or movement and this pride will just fall away (Matt 16:33).
Now I know that some or most of what I've said here will most likely be twisted so that it seems that I am attacking our group of people. This is categorically not true. I believe we as a group have been called out, and are a special people. I am not denouncing the body of Christ, far from it. It's the arrogance that casts aside the work of Christ in anyone not of our group that I am denouncing. To say or infer otherwise is no more than an outright falsehood. What will eventually happen to those who spread falsehoods this way is that they will become what they fear (Jer 13:24-25).
References:
Babylon in the NT: Mat 1:11, Mat1:12, Matt 1:17, Acts7:43, 1 Pet 5:13, Rev 14:8, Rev 16:19, Rev 17:5, Rev 18:2, Rev 18:10, Rev 18:21.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Undoctrine
I use a bold title to emphasize a simple concept. I realize that my understanding is far from perfect. I came to this conclusion a long time ago that some part of my doctrinal stance is wrong. There is no possible way that I could have 100% of the truth 100% of the time. Because of this, I want to learn everything I can so that the things I have wrong I can correct, but I also do not suffer under the delusion that while in this mortal coil I can have all of the truth. Even the Apostle Paul didn't claim to have all of the truth (1 Cor 13:9,12).
The thing is, I don't know what doctrines I have wrong. I do want to understand every good thing I can about God, but at the same time, I don't expect to ever have an answer to every question, I'm not even looking for that. It takes a pressure off knowing that I don't have to understand everything in order to be saved. Instead we see that the saved eventually will know even as we are known (1 Cor 13:10).
Expanding on this idea, what applies to me applies to everyone. I realize that there is no one in my church, the pastor included, that possesses all of the truth. My church has some doctrines that they hold to and teach that are wrong, how could they not? There is a flip side to this too though. There are those in my church that understand things that I don't, so in the church there is opportunity to grow in knowledge (2 Pet 3:18).
Expanding again, what applies to me and to my church applies to our group of people. There is no way that our group could possess all of the truth. The ministry in our group are divided on doctrine. What use is the threshing floor if everyone agreed on everything? Additionally, if there is a disagreement on a doctrine, can you honestly say that at least one of the parties disagreeing aren't in the wrong? Even if the ministry was in complete agreement on everything, that would be no assurance of accuracy, merely of being wrong (1 Cor 8:2).
Am I trying to destroy and lay waste to our heritage? No, instead you should be asking yourself what my intent is. Merely this: Humility. "God keep me humble" is a truly precarious prayer indeed; He's just might do it. It takes a truly humble person to stand up and say the words "I am wrong". This is the difference between someone who is searching for truth and someone who is defending their position.
Do we lose anything by admitting that we are wrong? I ask you this, if a father wrongs his children or a husband wrongs his wife, does he lose their respect by apologizing to them? No, the opposite is true. By admitting our faults instead of pretending we don't have any, we stay humble, teachable, open to the moving of God. The alternative is to be mired in arrogance and self-righteousness (1 Cor 8:1).
I learned early in my Christian walk that knowledge and understanding can be a trap. Someone who is knowledgeable can be easily tempted to rely on that understanding. We've been admonished not to do this though (Prov 3:5-7). We need to acknowledge and rely upon God; He will direct our paths. I'm so thankful that as a schoolchild I was made to memorize that passage, it's never left me. When I rely solely on myself, I am building on sand, and when the trials of this life surround me, what I've built will collapse because it has no foundation (Matt 7:24-25).
So do we throw away everything that we are and everything that we have? Of course not. We are built together upon truth with Jesus as our cornerstone and what kind of fool would I be to ever suggest throwing that away (Eph 2:20-22)? Instead I want to have a proper focus. I want to be Christ centered. Where our focus should be is on the Love of God and not on our own understanding.
The third verse of the old hymn The Love of God is such a beautiful thing, I've included it here in its entirety:
Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.
With a love like that, how can we refrain from talking about it every chance that we get? That should always have top billing over any doctrine or man's understanding. For you see, the love of God fills the gaps of my understanding and I become known of him (1 Cor 8:3). I'd rather be known than know anyday, that is my undoctrine.
The thing is, I don't know what doctrines I have wrong. I do want to understand every good thing I can about God, but at the same time, I don't expect to ever have an answer to every question, I'm not even looking for that. It takes a pressure off knowing that I don't have to understand everything in order to be saved. Instead we see that the saved eventually will know even as we are known (1 Cor 13:10).
Expanding on this idea, what applies to me applies to everyone. I realize that there is no one in my church, the pastor included, that possesses all of the truth. My church has some doctrines that they hold to and teach that are wrong, how could they not? There is a flip side to this too though. There are those in my church that understand things that I don't, so in the church there is opportunity to grow in knowledge (2 Pet 3:18).
Expanding again, what applies to me and to my church applies to our group of people. There is no way that our group could possess all of the truth. The ministry in our group are divided on doctrine. What use is the threshing floor if everyone agreed on everything? Additionally, if there is a disagreement on a doctrine, can you honestly say that at least one of the parties disagreeing aren't in the wrong? Even if the ministry was in complete agreement on everything, that would be no assurance of accuracy, merely of being wrong (1 Cor 8:2).
Am I trying to destroy and lay waste to our heritage? No, instead you should be asking yourself what my intent is. Merely this: Humility. "God keep me humble" is a truly precarious prayer indeed; He's just might do it. It takes a truly humble person to stand up and say the words "I am wrong". This is the difference between someone who is searching for truth and someone who is defending their position.
Do we lose anything by admitting that we are wrong? I ask you this, if a father wrongs his children or a husband wrongs his wife, does he lose their respect by apologizing to them? No, the opposite is true. By admitting our faults instead of pretending we don't have any, we stay humble, teachable, open to the moving of God. The alternative is to be mired in arrogance and self-righteousness (1 Cor 8:1).
I learned early in my Christian walk that knowledge and understanding can be a trap. Someone who is knowledgeable can be easily tempted to rely on that understanding. We've been admonished not to do this though (Prov 3:5-7). We need to acknowledge and rely upon God; He will direct our paths. I'm so thankful that as a schoolchild I was made to memorize that passage, it's never left me. When I rely solely on myself, I am building on sand, and when the trials of this life surround me, what I've built will collapse because it has no foundation (Matt 7:24-25).
So do we throw away everything that we are and everything that we have? Of course not. We are built together upon truth with Jesus as our cornerstone and what kind of fool would I be to ever suggest throwing that away (Eph 2:20-22)? Instead I want to have a proper focus. I want to be Christ centered. Where our focus should be is on the Love of God and not on our own understanding.
The third verse of the old hymn The Love of God is such a beautiful thing, I've included it here in its entirety:
Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.
With a love like that, how can we refrain from talking about it every chance that we get? That should always have top billing over any doctrine or man's understanding. For you see, the love of God fills the gaps of my understanding and I become known of him (1 Cor 8:3). I'd rather be known than know anyday, that is my undoctrine.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Re: The Root of the Problem
I normally take more time than I am today when I write, so this post may be just a little sub-par. If so, I apologize now.
I'd like to begin by stating that I do not advocate less commitment. If you are a Christian, be as committed as you can to Christ. I do however believe that He will take up the slack. Also, I do not advocate abandoning standards. I think that a standard is vital to our Christian walk. I simply state that it cannot be dictated externally, but should be a fruit of the process of maturation through Christ. Merely subscribing to a checklist of dos and don'ts can never be enough, all that does is fix the outside leaving the inside unchecked (Luke 11:39).
I am amazed that somehow I managed to jump to the forefront of "this effort". Five posts (this is my sixth) on a blog not too many people even know exists and I have become a chief of the liberalization movement. I have this to say about that, "Um, OK?"
Do I believe in perfection whether it concerns perfect church order or not? Absolutely. Do I believe it is an intrinsic quality? No. I believe in a proxy perfection, and yes I understand that not everyone agrees with me on this, or even quite understands what I am saying when I use the word proxy (which isn't even in the Bible), but it is a good word. I am stating here that I, me, the person writing this blog, have a mediator between me and God, and that is Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5) an advocate (1 John 2:1) or if you will be so kind, a proxy. Jesus covered my sin by his blood, and I became a partaker in His death (Rom 6:3). I was dead, but now I am alive THROUGH Jesus Christ (Rom 6:11). Should I sin because I have all of this? No, of course not (Rom 6:15). Don't you know that I can become addicted to sinning (Rom 6:16)? I'm saying the things that I'm saying because even though Christians are covered by Christ's sinlessness, I'm still human and I can fail but even when I do I still have hope through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 6:23). I believe in a Christ-centeredness.
Maybe I'm wrong to think that Christ's blood can even cover a sin that I haven't yet committed. Maybe it's not powerful enough to do this and somehow I need to make up for this on my own? No, no, no. The blood covered all my sins and when grace came into my life the day I first believed, Christ became my atonement now and forevermore (1 John 2:2). That never changes.
I've been accused of being a man who is not serving Jesus Christ by Bro. Dyal through his use of Rom 16:17-18. If you REALLY believe this, don't listen to a single word I have said or will say. If it's my intention to divide God's people up, then ignore me. Stop reading now and walk away. Strange though isn't it how Bro. Dyal seems to know exactly what my intentions are? Moreover since his blog doesn't directly quote me or reference the post I wrote in any way other than stating my userID, you are only left with his interpretation of what I said, therefore he is capable of portraying my intentions as whatever he wants or needs them to be to say what he is saying. Oh well, at least he said I can write fairly well, so I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks.
I'd like to quote from his blog though if I can. "If they cannot answer yes to both of these questions they do not have the vision of this body." (emphasis added) [1]. I'll state right here, right now, I don't have a vision of this body. Whoa, did I just step into a trap? Hope not. What I will say is that I have a vision of Christ for this body. I simply refuse to put the cart before the horse, or in this case the body before the Head. I'm interested in what Christ is doing with our group, not just what our group is doing. A vision is about what you are looking at, and I've turned my eyes upon Jesus, not upon a group of men.
Oh, and by the way, if anyone feels like quoting any of the preceding paragraph, quote it all, or reference it and urge people to read it in its entirety so that they understand what I'm saying. Don't use a partial quotation to put words in my mouth, or rather take them out. That's fair isn't it?
I've already answered Bro. Dyal's question B (see above) and now I will tackle question A. In all honesty, I'm guessing that Bro. Dyal meant to write Holy Ghost filled Christians and not Holy Ghost Christians, so I am going to assume that he meant that. "Do you believe that the ultimate goal of Holy Ghost filled Christians in The Body Of Christ is to completely mature into the divine image of Christ having completely divested themselves of the sin nature?"
I don't believe that people can completely divest themselves of their sin nature (Eph 2:8-9). Assuming that you could however, what need would you have of Christ anymore? Would there be a time in your life, even just a second before you died, that you could live in a fashion that you would no longer need that hope that is within you, just a fraction of a second even where you didn't need Christ?
There's more to question A than just that though, and the best way I can answer this is by asking the following question. How do you know you are completely mature?
Bro. Dyal says "My revelation has not changed from what was delivered to me almost forty years ago, and I will not follow lesser gift, and no gift vain talkers into perdition." [1] I say, my revelation has changed as I've grown and matured. I've learned more than I knew twenty years ago (I can't say forty; I'm not old enough yet) and I expect to learn more than I know today as I grow (2 Pet 3:18). My understanding is not a static thing. I also will not follow a lesser gift, but I am looking for a greater understanding.
Bro. Dyal also says "If this group of men and Assemblies go in the direction espoused by this man and his fellow travellers I will cease to believe it to be the body of Christ, lose all confidence in it having any vision of what God is doing in the earth today, and cease to gather with it with any regularity." [1] I say that God has placed me in this group of people, and if any one of them veers away, I will continue to love them and try to encourage them to correct any issues that need correcting. I will not abandon the people God put me among merely because I disagree with them.
I know that what I am writing is not going to change the way that some people think, I will not delude myself into thinking that I can do anything more than I can do. However, I am a person that tries to make sure that what I am being taught is correct (I Thess 5:21) So being driven by that and taking my method from John 8:7, I now welcome anyone reading this who is now sinless, post the first reply.
Reference:
[1] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/root-of-problem-is.html
I'd like to begin by stating that I do not advocate less commitment. If you are a Christian, be as committed as you can to Christ. I do however believe that He will take up the slack. Also, I do not advocate abandoning standards. I think that a standard is vital to our Christian walk. I simply state that it cannot be dictated externally, but should be a fruit of the process of maturation through Christ. Merely subscribing to a checklist of dos and don'ts can never be enough, all that does is fix the outside leaving the inside unchecked (Luke 11:39).
I am amazed that somehow I managed to jump to the forefront of "this effort". Five posts (this is my sixth) on a blog not too many people even know exists and I have become a chief of the liberalization movement. I have this to say about that, "Um, OK?"
Do I believe in perfection whether it concerns perfect church order or not? Absolutely. Do I believe it is an intrinsic quality? No. I believe in a proxy perfection, and yes I understand that not everyone agrees with me on this, or even quite understands what I am saying when I use the word proxy (which isn't even in the Bible), but it is a good word. I am stating here that I, me, the person writing this blog, have a mediator between me and God, and that is Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5) an advocate (1 John 2:1) or if you will be so kind, a proxy. Jesus covered my sin by his blood, and I became a partaker in His death (Rom 6:3). I was dead, but now I am alive THROUGH Jesus Christ (Rom 6:11). Should I sin because I have all of this? No, of course not (Rom 6:15). Don't you know that I can become addicted to sinning (Rom 6:16)? I'm saying the things that I'm saying because even though Christians are covered by Christ's sinlessness, I'm still human and I can fail but even when I do I still have hope through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 6:23). I believe in a Christ-centeredness.
Maybe I'm wrong to think that Christ's blood can even cover a sin that I haven't yet committed. Maybe it's not powerful enough to do this and somehow I need to make up for this on my own? No, no, no. The blood covered all my sins and when grace came into my life the day I first believed, Christ became my atonement now and forevermore (1 John 2:2). That never changes.
I've been accused of being a man who is not serving Jesus Christ by Bro. Dyal through his use of Rom 16:17-18. If you REALLY believe this, don't listen to a single word I have said or will say. If it's my intention to divide God's people up, then ignore me. Stop reading now and walk away. Strange though isn't it how Bro. Dyal seems to know exactly what my intentions are? Moreover since his blog doesn't directly quote me or reference the post I wrote in any way other than stating my userID, you are only left with his interpretation of what I said, therefore he is capable of portraying my intentions as whatever he wants or needs them to be to say what he is saying. Oh well, at least he said I can write fairly well, so I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks.
I'd like to quote from his blog though if I can. "If they cannot answer yes to both of these questions they do not have the vision of this body." (emphasis added) [1]. I'll state right here, right now, I don't have a vision of this body. Whoa, did I just step into a trap? Hope not. What I will say is that I have a vision of Christ for this body. I simply refuse to put the cart before the horse, or in this case the body before the Head. I'm interested in what Christ is doing with our group, not just what our group is doing. A vision is about what you are looking at, and I've turned my eyes upon Jesus, not upon a group of men.
Oh, and by the way, if anyone feels like quoting any of the preceding paragraph, quote it all, or reference it and urge people to read it in its entirety so that they understand what I'm saying. Don't use a partial quotation to put words in my mouth, or rather take them out. That's fair isn't it?
I've already answered Bro. Dyal's question B (see above) and now I will tackle question A. In all honesty, I'm guessing that Bro. Dyal meant to write Holy Ghost filled Christians and not Holy Ghost Christians, so I am going to assume that he meant that. "Do you believe that the ultimate goal of Holy Ghost filled Christians in The Body Of Christ is to completely mature into the divine image of Christ having completely divested themselves of the sin nature?"
I don't believe that people can completely divest themselves of their sin nature (Eph 2:8-9). Assuming that you could however, what need would you have of Christ anymore? Would there be a time in your life, even just a second before you died, that you could live in a fashion that you would no longer need that hope that is within you, just a fraction of a second even where you didn't need Christ?
There's more to question A than just that though, and the best way I can answer this is by asking the following question. How do you know you are completely mature?
Bro. Dyal says "My revelation has not changed from what was delivered to me almost forty years ago, and I will not follow lesser gift, and no gift vain talkers into perdition." [1] I say, my revelation has changed as I've grown and matured. I've learned more than I knew twenty years ago (I can't say forty; I'm not old enough yet) and I expect to learn more than I know today as I grow (2 Pet 3:18). My understanding is not a static thing. I also will not follow a lesser gift, but I am looking for a greater understanding.
Bro. Dyal also says "If this group of men and Assemblies go in the direction espoused by this man and his fellow travellers I will cease to believe it to be the body of Christ, lose all confidence in it having any vision of what God is doing in the earth today, and cease to gather with it with any regularity." [1] I say that God has placed me in this group of people, and if any one of them veers away, I will continue to love them and try to encourage them to correct any issues that need correcting. I will not abandon the people God put me among merely because I disagree with them.
I know that what I am writing is not going to change the way that some people think, I will not delude myself into thinking that I can do anything more than I can do. However, I am a person that tries to make sure that what I am being taught is correct (I Thess 5:21) So being driven by that and taking my method from John 8:7, I now welcome anyone reading this who is now sinless, post the first reply.
Reference:
[1] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/root-of-problem-is.html
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Overcoming
This is one of my favorite subject to talk about, as it really inspires me. I once had a teacher who made the excellent point that what wasn't explained in history was the information that everyone knew, the information that everyone took for granted. To me, overcoming, especially in our group fits this bill and can be a source of confusion to the younger generation. It is just so easy to assume that everyone knows what it is to be an overcomer, that the word overcoming almost becomes a platitude or colloquialism. In this post I just want to give an applicative definition of what it means to overcome.
I've heard taught that being an overcomer means that you have reached a point at which you can no longer be tempted. Each of the synoptic Gospels give an account of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness. Hebrews also states that Jesus was tempted just like we are (Heb 4:15). I have trouble reconciling us attaining a state where we could not be tempted with the scriptural account of Jesus being tempted. Romans does not support this description of overcoming (Rom 3:10). As a matter of fact, James says something very strange about temptation (James 1:2). Who was he talking to? Obviously not "overcomers".
We do not ever reach a incorruptible state. Looking at this logically, if we did somehow manage to reach what would be a sinless state, we would no longer need a savior. If we attained this point of perfection, we would no longer need to worry about how we handled ourselves. What I find though is that the people who espouse this doctrine of overcoming are very worried about committing sin, and don't have much assurance. Without being overt about it, they seem to believe a salvation of grace up to a point. Somewhere in their Christian walk they switch over from believing in grace to believing in works, or at least denial of the works of the flesh. I once asked a wonderful elderly lady who had been about our way for almost all of her life whether she knew that she would go to heaven, and she began telling me about how she always tried to do good and at least she tried not to sin, but she was just never sure that it was enough so she just kept trying. Eph 2:8-9 directly addresses this denial of the gift of God which is the product of teaching overcoming this way. We cannot ever save ourselves.
So what is overcoming? I'd like to use an example to illustrate my point because it will be more poignant. Consider if you will a man who is an alcoholic. He attends AA and turns his life around. He may never lose the desire to drink for the rest of his life, but every time he denies that desire and refuses to take a drink, he is an overcomer.
Overcoming is an action verb, not a state of being. We are admonished to put off the old man and put on the new man (Col 3:9-10) but no where in that admonition are we led to believe that we will reach a level eventually where that is automatic. Your Christian walk does not have an autopilot.
Personalizing this, every time I am tempted and make a choice not to sin and follow through with it, I am an overcomer. It's that easy. Anyone can do it, there is no mystery involved. In a way, it's much like breathing; doing it regularly is very good for you. There is a constant aspect of our walk described by Luke (Luke 9:23). We will all struggle with sin until the day that we die, it is our nature. We will not obtain an incorruptible nature until we have gone out of this existence (1 Cor 15:52, 1 Pet 1:4). So until we do die, the old saying "Keep on keeping on" applies.
This being said, this is NOT an admonition to no longer try to be an overcomer. Humanity tends to vacillate from one extreme to another. I am not saying that anything goes or that we should just keep sinning because of the grace of God (Rom 6:1-2, Rom 6:12-15). Please don't read anything into this post that I'm not saying.
I want to bring in a concept of worldliness into the discussion here because it fits. The world is full of sin and corruption, but we've been called out of the world (John 15:19). But still we are surrounded by the world we are called out of. It's like being in the middle of a river and not getting wet. This is impossible, but I believe that my God doesn't know the meaning of that word. As a matter of fact, he allowed the children of Israel to pass through the Red Sea and the Jordan on dry ground. We can only be called out through a closeness with Jesus Christ, no other way! That make us of God, his children, because of Jesus dwelling within us (1 John 4:4). In Him and in Him only do I dwell.
I'm going to raise the stakes here a bit and state that Jesus was an overcomer. What? Did I hear me right? I want to say it again, Jesus was an overcomer; he overcame sin (John 16:33). How did he do this? One temptation at a time. You see, temptation only becomes sin when we give in. When you don't overcome, you sin. When you don't sin, you overcome. Jesus did not sin, he overcame sin. As a matter of fact if Jesus hadn't overcome, we wouldn't be able to.
There is so much scripture regarding this I hardly know where to start, but don't know if any other scripture lays this out better than 1 Cor 15:57. We have our victory through Christ! Go back a bit you will see that we have yet to be completely changed, and we will put on incorruptibility (1 Cor 15:52-53). I do not separate the physical from the spiritual in this scripture as some are wont to do. Both physical and spiritual are the creation of God, and both are damned without Him.
I want to close this post by quoting 1 John 2:1-2 because it is a passage so full of hope for us, so full of meaning, and so necessary in these times. "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world."
I've heard taught that being an overcomer means that you have reached a point at which you can no longer be tempted. Each of the synoptic Gospels give an account of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness. Hebrews also states that Jesus was tempted just like we are (Heb 4:15). I have trouble reconciling us attaining a state where we could not be tempted with the scriptural account of Jesus being tempted. Romans does not support this description of overcoming (Rom 3:10). As a matter of fact, James says something very strange about temptation (James 1:2). Who was he talking to? Obviously not "overcomers".
We do not ever reach a incorruptible state. Looking at this logically, if we did somehow manage to reach what would be a sinless state, we would no longer need a savior. If we attained this point of perfection, we would no longer need to worry about how we handled ourselves. What I find though is that the people who espouse this doctrine of overcoming are very worried about committing sin, and don't have much assurance. Without being overt about it, they seem to believe a salvation of grace up to a point. Somewhere in their Christian walk they switch over from believing in grace to believing in works, or at least denial of the works of the flesh. I once asked a wonderful elderly lady who had been about our way for almost all of her life whether she knew that she would go to heaven, and she began telling me about how she always tried to do good and at least she tried not to sin, but she was just never sure that it was enough so she just kept trying. Eph 2:8-9 directly addresses this denial of the gift of God which is the product of teaching overcoming this way. We cannot ever save ourselves.
So what is overcoming? I'd like to use an example to illustrate my point because it will be more poignant. Consider if you will a man who is an alcoholic. He attends AA and turns his life around. He may never lose the desire to drink for the rest of his life, but every time he denies that desire and refuses to take a drink, he is an overcomer.
Overcoming is an action verb, not a state of being. We are admonished to put off the old man and put on the new man (Col 3:9-10) but no where in that admonition are we led to believe that we will reach a level eventually where that is automatic. Your Christian walk does not have an autopilot.
Personalizing this, every time I am tempted and make a choice not to sin and follow through with it, I am an overcomer. It's that easy. Anyone can do it, there is no mystery involved. In a way, it's much like breathing; doing it regularly is very good for you. There is a constant aspect of our walk described by Luke (Luke 9:23). We will all struggle with sin until the day that we die, it is our nature. We will not obtain an incorruptible nature until we have gone out of this existence (1 Cor 15:52, 1 Pet 1:4). So until we do die, the old saying "Keep on keeping on" applies.
This being said, this is NOT an admonition to no longer try to be an overcomer. Humanity tends to vacillate from one extreme to another. I am not saying that anything goes or that we should just keep sinning because of the grace of God (Rom 6:1-2, Rom 6:12-15). Please don't read anything into this post that I'm not saying.
I want to bring in a concept of worldliness into the discussion here because it fits. The world is full of sin and corruption, but we've been called out of the world (John 15:19). But still we are surrounded by the world we are called out of. It's like being in the middle of a river and not getting wet. This is impossible, but I believe that my God doesn't know the meaning of that word. As a matter of fact, he allowed the children of Israel to pass through the Red Sea and the Jordan on dry ground. We can only be called out through a closeness with Jesus Christ, no other way! That make us of God, his children, because of Jesus dwelling within us (1 John 4:4). In Him and in Him only do I dwell.
I'm going to raise the stakes here a bit and state that Jesus was an overcomer. What? Did I hear me right? I want to say it again, Jesus was an overcomer; he overcame sin (John 16:33). How did he do this? One temptation at a time. You see, temptation only becomes sin when we give in. When you don't overcome, you sin. When you don't sin, you overcome. Jesus did not sin, he overcame sin. As a matter of fact if Jesus hadn't overcome, we wouldn't be able to.
There is so much scripture regarding this I hardly know where to start, but don't know if any other scripture lays this out better than 1 Cor 15:57. We have our victory through Christ! Go back a bit you will see that we have yet to be completely changed, and we will put on incorruptibility (1 Cor 15:52-53). I do not separate the physical from the spiritual in this scripture as some are wont to do. Both physical and spiritual are the creation of God, and both are damned without Him.
I want to close this post by quoting 1 John 2:1-2 because it is a passage so full of hope for us, so full of meaning, and so necessary in these times. "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world."
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Ad Hominem
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise[1].
I have two reasons for writing this post today. The first deals with how we deal with defending what we believe.
I'd first like to state though that I think it is important to know what you believe and be ready to defend your beliefs, and I think Peter lays this out well (1 Peter 3:15). Defending is passive though, and it's active brother is proselytizing. Proselytizing for Christians is spreading the Gospel, and that is laid out in Mark (Mark 16:15). So in no way do I condemn anyone for telling what they believe, in fact I commend those who stand up and say what it is that they believe; I see it as a Biblical imperative.
Also, I don't disparage anyone for having an opinion that differs from mine. I expect there to be differences in interpretation and I do not see that as a sign of schism in the church. Furthermore, I do not believe that we as a group as called to complete doctrinal unity; to say such strikes of gnosticism to me. I've never held to the thought that to be saved, you have to have your doctrine just right and have a perfect understanding of the Bible. The problem with that belief is who is right? Additionally, every group that has ever grasped "all of the truth" has set it in stone and they have put themselves in a position where it's difficult if not impossible to move out into a deeper understanding. I cannot honestly subscribe to anyone person or group holding all of the truth, especially myself; this strikes me as cult-like.
With a progressive revelation, we are ever learning and being shown new things, whether they come from God directly or through another saint that God uses for this purpose (Prov 27:17). We need to be able to present new ideas and discuss them, seeking out the truth in a spirit of love (1 Thess 5:21). We are called to a unity of the Spirit, which is one of the products of God's intercession.
What is not acceptable is attacking someones character because they don't see eye to eye with you. A person's character is not representative of whether or not they are correct in a particular case. I can honestly say that I can heartily disagree with someone and still consider them my brother.
I have a good friend whom I disagree with on just about every doctrine. There's another friend of mine who over the years has come to an understanding that closely parallels my own. Is the second friend a genius and the first an idiot? Is the first person blind or perhaps am I? Which one of them is more righteous then the other? I certainly am not the one to judge righteousness, and furthermore, both of these friends spend considerable time in the scriptures studying. Neither of them has any mental deficiency nor are they not ardent in their research. They are merely at different levels of understanding, and I have to assume that they are currently right where God wants them to be. To believe otherwise is a great denial on my part, and I would need my faith strengthened.
Furthermore, finding out that a person possesses terrible character quality does not invalidate the truth that he has said. An extreme example of this can sadly be found in our group as well. Bro. Tom Jolly committed some heinous acts and was eventually arrested for them. The fact remains that he said things that were good and true, and God showed him these truths. I do not deny Tom Jolly's ministry or what positive impact he had on our group; at the same time I don't condone anything despicable that he did. It's my understanding that God loves us and uses us despite how we act sometimes. Grace is operative when we don't deserve it, and especially operative when we really don't deserve it. It would be unwise of us to throw away everything that this man said just because of his later actions.
The second reason that I wrote this post is to apply it to myself. I do not want to convey myself as attacking the character of any other person, especially Bro. Paul Dyal. The printed word sometimes is not an adequate method of conveying feelings, so I want to take a little time to expound on this so that I make myself very clear.
I do not hold a grudge against Bro. Dyal. I sincerely hope that I am making myself clear with that statement; it's as clear and concise as I can make it. I do not think that he is addled of wits or that he has ulterior motives. On the contrary, if I were to judge his actions, I would say that they are those of a man who is passionate about defending God's people from harm. I hold Bro. Dyal in high regard for this as not everyone would do this. I recognize the fervor he displays and admire him for it. He is a good man, a man to be trusted, and man whom I consider a brother in Christ. I merely disagree with him on some points.
I am not trying to discredit the man, just disagree with him. I'm not trying to attack him, just present my viewpoint using a similar outlet. I also want to state definitively right here right now that I might be wrong. I don't think I am, but I'm certainly not infallible. The flip side of this is that Bro. Dyal might be wrong as well, and I happen to think he is in his regimented stance on the standards of holiness.
I want to be able to disagree with someone without creating a personal issue for myself and additionally without causing injury to someone I respect. As a matter of fact, I enjoy listening to Bro. Dyal talk a lot. I have found that I learn much more from someone who has a different viewpoint than I do if I'm able to have an open mind. The fact that just about everyone in the ministry sees things a little differently than I do grants me tons of opportunities to learn.
Seeing that I do not intend to cause any hurt to anyone I disagree with, I apologize if I do. Let me know personally and I will apologize specifically addressing any indiscretion. I don't think it's wrong for me to expect the same courtesy reciprocated though. I pray that because I disagree with anyone that they wouldn't take it upon themselves to lash out at me in an inappropriate way, to cause me hurt, or to defame my character. And not just me, anyone who has an opposing viewpoint. Disagree, but do so in with a spirit of meekness and of love.
There's only one thing left to address, and that is a specific defamation of the character of Bro. Steve Farmer. I've only known this man personally for about a year. I attended a service at his church while visiting some of my friends, and I was introduced to him then. I got to know him better later at a meeting this summer and I will say this of him. He strikes me as an excellent listener and a patient man. I also consider him a brother, but more importantly to me I consider him my friend. I look forward to getting to know him better as time goes on.
Over the last six months though, I've heard every type of attack on Bro. Farmer and his character. What the man has said has been distorted and taken out of context again and again. His motives have been brought into question and he has also been used as a tool to stir up unrest between churches in our group. Rumors have been passed on as fact, some of which are categorically wrong. Also his name has been attached to problems in churches throughout our group that have nothing to do with anything he has either said or done. Disagree with him, in fact, do so boisterously, especially if you believe that he is wrong. However if you attack him and his character, you are wrong, and you need to repent to him. Oh, and by the way if you intend on disagreeing with him, it helps to know what he's really said, so take the time to dig and find out instead of listening to second-hand rumor.
At a camp meeting I attended as a teenager, I was listening to an very elderly minister that I didn't know speaking on pre-marital sex where he made a point that was completely wrong. He said that pre-marital sex was permissible if you intended to get married. I believe that what he was really trying to say was if you've had pre-marital sex, you should get married to that person and seek forgiveness and his age (well over ninety) was the origin of his confusion. Sin is never permissible, just forgivable, we all know that. The fact remains that what was meant to be a twenty minute talk ended up being a two hour back and forth where this elderly gentleman was stretched out beyond his capacity, and was being lambasted by the ministry and reviled by the congregation. Some attacked him, and I heard people referring to him as the pre-marital sex preacher for the rest of the meeting. Sure he was wrong, but we didn't have to run him down as we did. Attacking him in this manner was immature at best, but it is human nature, part of the human experience, and sadly to be expected. We certainly did not show a spirit of love at that meeting.
We are brothers and sisters in Christ and to not expect some friction between siblings is naive. I do expect that through the working of the Spirit, we can find the truth and progress into more of the blessings God has in store for us.
Reference:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I have two reasons for writing this post today. The first deals with how we deal with defending what we believe.
I'd first like to state though that I think it is important to know what you believe and be ready to defend your beliefs, and I think Peter lays this out well (1 Peter 3:15). Defending is passive though, and it's active brother is proselytizing. Proselytizing for Christians is spreading the Gospel, and that is laid out in Mark (Mark 16:15). So in no way do I condemn anyone for telling what they believe, in fact I commend those who stand up and say what it is that they believe; I see it as a Biblical imperative.
Also, I don't disparage anyone for having an opinion that differs from mine. I expect there to be differences in interpretation and I do not see that as a sign of schism in the church. Furthermore, I do not believe that we as a group as called to complete doctrinal unity; to say such strikes of gnosticism to me. I've never held to the thought that to be saved, you have to have your doctrine just right and have a perfect understanding of the Bible. The problem with that belief is who is right? Additionally, every group that has ever grasped "all of the truth" has set it in stone and they have put themselves in a position where it's difficult if not impossible to move out into a deeper understanding. I cannot honestly subscribe to anyone person or group holding all of the truth, especially myself; this strikes me as cult-like.
With a progressive revelation, we are ever learning and being shown new things, whether they come from God directly or through another saint that God uses for this purpose (Prov 27:17). We need to be able to present new ideas and discuss them, seeking out the truth in a spirit of love (1 Thess 5:21). We are called to a unity of the Spirit, which is one of the products of God's intercession.
What is not acceptable is attacking someones character because they don't see eye to eye with you. A person's character is not representative of whether or not they are correct in a particular case. I can honestly say that I can heartily disagree with someone and still consider them my brother.
I have a good friend whom I disagree with on just about every doctrine. There's another friend of mine who over the years has come to an understanding that closely parallels my own. Is the second friend a genius and the first an idiot? Is the first person blind or perhaps am I? Which one of them is more righteous then the other? I certainly am not the one to judge righteousness, and furthermore, both of these friends spend considerable time in the scriptures studying. Neither of them has any mental deficiency nor are they not ardent in their research. They are merely at different levels of understanding, and I have to assume that they are currently right where God wants them to be. To believe otherwise is a great denial on my part, and I would need my faith strengthened.
Furthermore, finding out that a person possesses terrible character quality does not invalidate the truth that he has said. An extreme example of this can sadly be found in our group as well. Bro. Tom Jolly committed some heinous acts and was eventually arrested for them. The fact remains that he said things that were good and true, and God showed him these truths. I do not deny Tom Jolly's ministry or what positive impact he had on our group; at the same time I don't condone anything despicable that he did. It's my understanding that God loves us and uses us despite how we act sometimes. Grace is operative when we don't deserve it, and especially operative when we really don't deserve it. It would be unwise of us to throw away everything that this man said just because of his later actions.
The second reason that I wrote this post is to apply it to myself. I do not want to convey myself as attacking the character of any other person, especially Bro. Paul Dyal. The printed word sometimes is not an adequate method of conveying feelings, so I want to take a little time to expound on this so that I make myself very clear.
I do not hold a grudge against Bro. Dyal. I sincerely hope that I am making myself clear with that statement; it's as clear and concise as I can make it. I do not think that he is addled of wits or that he has ulterior motives. On the contrary, if I were to judge his actions, I would say that they are those of a man who is passionate about defending God's people from harm. I hold Bro. Dyal in high regard for this as not everyone would do this. I recognize the fervor he displays and admire him for it. He is a good man, a man to be trusted, and man whom I consider a brother in Christ. I merely disagree with him on some points.
I am not trying to discredit the man, just disagree with him. I'm not trying to attack him, just present my viewpoint using a similar outlet. I also want to state definitively right here right now that I might be wrong. I don't think I am, but I'm certainly not infallible. The flip side of this is that Bro. Dyal might be wrong as well, and I happen to think he is in his regimented stance on the standards of holiness.
I want to be able to disagree with someone without creating a personal issue for myself and additionally without causing injury to someone I respect. As a matter of fact, I enjoy listening to Bro. Dyal talk a lot. I have found that I learn much more from someone who has a different viewpoint than I do if I'm able to have an open mind. The fact that just about everyone in the ministry sees things a little differently than I do grants me tons of opportunities to learn.
Seeing that I do not intend to cause any hurt to anyone I disagree with, I apologize if I do. Let me know personally and I will apologize specifically addressing any indiscretion. I don't think it's wrong for me to expect the same courtesy reciprocated though. I pray that because I disagree with anyone that they wouldn't take it upon themselves to lash out at me in an inappropriate way, to cause me hurt, or to defame my character. And not just me, anyone who has an opposing viewpoint. Disagree, but do so in with a spirit of meekness and of love.
There's only one thing left to address, and that is a specific defamation of the character of Bro. Steve Farmer. I've only known this man personally for about a year. I attended a service at his church while visiting some of my friends, and I was introduced to him then. I got to know him better later at a meeting this summer and I will say this of him. He strikes me as an excellent listener and a patient man. I also consider him a brother, but more importantly to me I consider him my friend. I look forward to getting to know him better as time goes on.
Over the last six months though, I've heard every type of attack on Bro. Farmer and his character. What the man has said has been distorted and taken out of context again and again. His motives have been brought into question and he has also been used as a tool to stir up unrest between churches in our group. Rumors have been passed on as fact, some of which are categorically wrong. Also his name has been attached to problems in churches throughout our group that have nothing to do with anything he has either said or done. Disagree with him, in fact, do so boisterously, especially if you believe that he is wrong. However if you attack him and his character, you are wrong, and you need to repent to him. Oh, and by the way if you intend on disagreeing with him, it helps to know what he's really said, so take the time to dig and find out instead of listening to second-hand rumor.
At a camp meeting I attended as a teenager, I was listening to an very elderly minister that I didn't know speaking on pre-marital sex where he made a point that was completely wrong. He said that pre-marital sex was permissible if you intended to get married. I believe that what he was really trying to say was if you've had pre-marital sex, you should get married to that person and seek forgiveness and his age (well over ninety) was the origin of his confusion. Sin is never permissible, just forgivable, we all know that. The fact remains that what was meant to be a twenty minute talk ended up being a two hour back and forth where this elderly gentleman was stretched out beyond his capacity, and was being lambasted by the ministry and reviled by the congregation. Some attacked him, and I heard people referring to him as the pre-marital sex preacher for the rest of the meeting. Sure he was wrong, but we didn't have to run him down as we did. Attacking him in this manner was immature at best, but it is human nature, part of the human experience, and sadly to be expected. We certainly did not show a spirit of love at that meeting.
We are brothers and sisters in Christ and to not expect some friction between siblings is naive. I do expect that through the working of the Spirit, we can find the truth and progress into more of the blessings God has in store for us.
Reference:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Perfect Church
I'm not condemning in this post, merely trying to set a few things straight. There are many people out there that when adversity strikes, either they go church hopping or become disillusioned with a particular church and make a vain attempt to find the perfect church. This is silly, there is no such thing. No church is ever going to be perfect, so don't go looking for that. Also, every church is going to have adversity, so get ready for it. Instead in this post I want to answer these two questions: 1. How do I find the right church to attend? and 2. Should I stick with a church when other people aren't?
The first question's answer is relatively simple. You do have to understand though that not all churches were created equal. I might just be a nitpicker, but I have to first ask what is a church?
There are so many buildings that have the word church or assembly somewhere in their name that you think finding a definition of what a church is would be simple. Not so. First of all, a church is not defined by the name, it is defined by what goes on inside the building. I've seen "churches" that could more accurately be described as concert halls, theaters, social centers, centers of commerce, or a myriad of other things. The thing is that whatever these organizations are, one thing's for sure, churches they ain't.
A church is about worshiping and praising God. A church is about saving souls. A church is not about its social activities, or education programs. Those things are nice, but those things are what a club does, and a church is not a club. Just some things to think about when determining whether the church you attend is a church. Ask yourself, when was the last time Jesus was mentioned? Did you not know that Bibles make a unique sound when many of them are opened at the same time? Are the Bibles dusty? I'm adding a bit of levity to make a point, but seriously, ask yourself these and other probing questions and find out if the church you're attending is a church at all.
It grieves me to say that some "churches" are merely out there as a way to make money. Some have loftier goals, but still the main focus of any church that is in Biblical order is to spread the Gospel. If you were to say "spread the Gospel" in your church and the response you got was "who the what now?", you need to reconsider where you attend. If Jesus isn't the main focus of your church, you don't attend a church. It's all about Jesus.
So how do you find the right church? I had someone ask me this recently because he wanted to know how to answer someone who asked him the same question. I prayed about it and a simple answer came to me. If you're looking for a church just to place a checkmark in a box, go to the church nearest to you. If you're not, go to the church nearest to Christ.
Does God move in your church? Do you feel His Spirit? What about other people, remember if you're in a church where people worship God and you don't, it may not be the church that has a problem. If everyone in your church is praying and worshiping and singing, and you're not, search your heart. If however, you find that no one really worships, it is probably time to consider moving on.
Finally, and in my opinion most important, I believe that God will place you in the church that you are supposed to be in. I don't think I can adequately explain how it is that God works, I'm not up to that challenge. Still, I know that He does and He will place you in the church He wants you in if you'll let Him. Pray about it and let God work in you life.
The second part of the question of "Where should I go to church?" is "when shouldn't I go there any more." This is by far the more difficult question to answer. When do I move on is a very touchy subject, and the only way that I can approach it is to creep up behind it and discuss when it's not right to leave a church.
My church has problems. I don't like the music. I have a problem with the leadership. Someone hurt my feelings. Nobody loves me there. I have personal issues with someone in the church. The pews are too hard. I don't agree with every doctrine that is taught. I don't like the way something was done. So many other people are leaving. The list goes on and on. I've heard many different reasons that someone started looking for another church, and in the vast majority of the cases the people presenting their reasons weren't being completely honest with themselves. In many cases the people leaving were just looking for an excuse to leave, and in those rare cases where that honestly was not the case, few people were completely honest with themselves about why they were really leaving.
None of the reasons I listed in my opinion are adequate enough to leave a church. Most of these issues are things to be worked though, not deal-breakers. Pardon the oversimplification, but if a banana has a small bad spot, you cut away what's bad and what you're left with is a banana. Problems at church does not equate to nothing right at church. If you go to a good church, stick with that church. The benefits of sticking out a rough situation are worth it. The song sang by the Crabbe family Though the Fire says "He never offered our victory without fighting" and good things are worth fighting for.
There's a reason for us to gather, and it's not an option for Christians who are in order. Hebrews challenges us to hold fast the profession of our faith together (Heb 10:23-25). This isn't a suggestion, we need to find ourselves a good church.
I will say that there are some exceptions to every rule. There are extreme cases in which it really is time to move on. I guess the real question to answer is "Can the problem be fixed?" It's my belief that unless the answer is a firm no, you stick with a church. Also before making a move like leaving a church, you need to consult with people who love you who are willing to not take you a face value and make sure you are being honest with yourself. Self deception is something we all deal with on one level or another. It would also be helpful to consult with someone in spiritual authority outside of the situation just to make sure you are covering all of your options.
If you've done all of this, and still find yourself needing to move on, and you've prayed about it and you feel God moving you out, then it's time to go. If not, please go the extra distance and make sure that you're making the right decision.
The first question's answer is relatively simple. You do have to understand though that not all churches were created equal. I might just be a nitpicker, but I have to first ask what is a church?
There are so many buildings that have the word church or assembly somewhere in their name that you think finding a definition of what a church is would be simple. Not so. First of all, a church is not defined by the name, it is defined by what goes on inside the building. I've seen "churches" that could more accurately be described as concert halls, theaters, social centers, centers of commerce, or a myriad of other things. The thing is that whatever these organizations are, one thing's for sure, churches they ain't.
A church is about worshiping and praising God. A church is about saving souls. A church is not about its social activities, or education programs. Those things are nice, but those things are what a club does, and a church is not a club. Just some things to think about when determining whether the church you attend is a church. Ask yourself, when was the last time Jesus was mentioned? Did you not know that Bibles make a unique sound when many of them are opened at the same time? Are the Bibles dusty? I'm adding a bit of levity to make a point, but seriously, ask yourself these and other probing questions and find out if the church you're attending is a church at all.
It grieves me to say that some "churches" are merely out there as a way to make money. Some have loftier goals, but still the main focus of any church that is in Biblical order is to spread the Gospel. If you were to say "spread the Gospel" in your church and the response you got was "who the what now?", you need to reconsider where you attend. If Jesus isn't the main focus of your church, you don't attend a church. It's all about Jesus.
So how do you find the right church? I had someone ask me this recently because he wanted to know how to answer someone who asked him the same question. I prayed about it and a simple answer came to me. If you're looking for a church just to place a checkmark in a box, go to the church nearest to you. If you're not, go to the church nearest to Christ.
Does God move in your church? Do you feel His Spirit? What about other people, remember if you're in a church where people worship God and you don't, it may not be the church that has a problem. If everyone in your church is praying and worshiping and singing, and you're not, search your heart. If however, you find that no one really worships, it is probably time to consider moving on.
Finally, and in my opinion most important, I believe that God will place you in the church that you are supposed to be in. I don't think I can adequately explain how it is that God works, I'm not up to that challenge. Still, I know that He does and He will place you in the church He wants you in if you'll let Him. Pray about it and let God work in you life.
The second part of the question of "Where should I go to church?" is "when shouldn't I go there any more." This is by far the more difficult question to answer. When do I move on is a very touchy subject, and the only way that I can approach it is to creep up behind it and discuss when it's not right to leave a church.
My church has problems. I don't like the music. I have a problem with the leadership. Someone hurt my feelings. Nobody loves me there. I have personal issues with someone in the church. The pews are too hard. I don't agree with every doctrine that is taught. I don't like the way something was done. So many other people are leaving. The list goes on and on. I've heard many different reasons that someone started looking for another church, and in the vast majority of the cases the people presenting their reasons weren't being completely honest with themselves. In many cases the people leaving were just looking for an excuse to leave, and in those rare cases where that honestly was not the case, few people were completely honest with themselves about why they were really leaving.
None of the reasons I listed in my opinion are adequate enough to leave a church. Most of these issues are things to be worked though, not deal-breakers. Pardon the oversimplification, but if a banana has a small bad spot, you cut away what's bad and what you're left with is a banana. Problems at church does not equate to nothing right at church. If you go to a good church, stick with that church. The benefits of sticking out a rough situation are worth it. The song sang by the Crabbe family Though the Fire says "He never offered our victory without fighting" and good things are worth fighting for.
There's a reason for us to gather, and it's not an option for Christians who are in order. Hebrews challenges us to hold fast the profession of our faith together (Heb 10:23-25). This isn't a suggestion, we need to find ourselves a good church.
I will say that there are some exceptions to every rule. There are extreme cases in which it really is time to move on. I guess the real question to answer is "Can the problem be fixed?" It's my belief that unless the answer is a firm no, you stick with a church. Also before making a move like leaving a church, you need to consult with people who love you who are willing to not take you a face value and make sure you are being honest with yourself. Self deception is something we all deal with on one level or another. It would also be helpful to consult with someone in spiritual authority outside of the situation just to make sure you are covering all of your options.
If you've done all of this, and still find yourself needing to move on, and you've prayed about it and you feel God moving you out, then it's time to go. If not, please go the extra distance and make sure that you're making the right decision.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Cosmetic Changes
Just an FYI, I was informed that my previous color scheme of white on black was difficult to read, so I have changed it. I may change it again, but I currently have no plans to.
Also, I added a reference pop-up tool that is excellent. Please hover over (John 3:16) and the scripture should pop up until you move off that text. Took a few tries to get it to work, but I'm very impressed.
Thank you for your comments on my first post. I'm contemplating them before I respond myself.
Finally, I'm working on a new article and should be ready near the end of the week. That catches me up on news.
Also, I added a reference pop-up tool that is excellent. Please hover over (John 3:16) and the scripture should pop up until you move off that text. Took a few tries to get it to work, but I'm very impressed.
Thank you for your comments on my first post. I'm contemplating them before I respond myself.
Finally, I'm working on a new article and should be ready near the end of the week. That catches me up on news.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
A Rebuttal of Paul Dyal's Blog
I have been reading a blog off and on this summer (http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com) and I know that I will receive some heat for this, but isn't that what happens to people who are brave enough to come forward and speak the truth?
Over the course of the summer, Bro. Paul Dyal has been accusing Bro. Steve Farmer of a move towards dismissing holiness. What has caused this accusation? Bro. Farmer has been espousing moving out into a greater understanding of modesty than has been previously held by the association to which both of the churches that both of these men pastor belong.
Bro. Dyal firmly holds to a set standard of holiness, and Bro. Farmer has inferred that holiness should come from a working of the Holy Spirit within you and not from some checklist. The real issue here is who is in control and that's what making this so controversial. Don't be fooled into thinking that the issue at hand is just holiness. See the problem isn't a question of whether it's the ministry who are in control or the lay persons. No, the real question is whether the ministry is in control, or God is in control.
Tradition is being questioned! This isn't how we've always done it! These aren't the principles that we were established on! Our standards define who we are! I can't adequately convey the feeling of disgust I feel even writing these four sentences, but I will address each of them separately.
1. Tradition: Here's the skinny here. Good traditions are good and bad traditions are bad. Keep your traditions if they are good; traditionalism is a very comforting thing and can bring much stability. However, teaching tradition as if it has the same standing as the Word of God is not only stupid, but it is also sinful. The Bible calls this "the traditions of the elders" (Matt 15:2). If you from a position of leadership teach that not strictly adhering to tradition or opinion is a sin, I have one word for you, beware.
2. Bureaucracy: There is a difference between bureaucracy and unity. Striving to have unity and trying to do things the same way because it is the right thing to do is honorable. However accountability must be present for unity to be good. You must have an answer for the question "why?". Hebrews teaches "Obey them that have the rule over you", but there is no obedience without understanding. Uninformed submission is nothing more than conformity or brain-washing. Questioning your leadership is not the same thing as disobedience. Holding leadership accountable is not rebellion, it's wisdom. Those who follow bad leadership are as accountable as those who lead badly.
3. Progressive Revelation: A foundation is just that, a foundation. It is meant to be built upon. It is a starting point, not the end. There is an inherent problem though with Progressive Revelation when you throw people in the mix. People only progress to the level at which they feel comfortable, and when they reach that level, they stop and begin defending their position, regardless of whether there is something more to be reached for or not. Progressive Revelation is like an unending series of progressively better furnished rooms. When you bunker down in a room that is comfortable enough for you and ignore the door to the next room, you've stopped progressing. I don't have too much of a problem with this on an individual basis, but when a leader tries to keep anyone else from going through that door to the next room, they are wrong. They are no longer leading, they are hindering and leaders who aren't leading aren't leaders.
4. We are our standards: This is the worst of the bunch. We are NOT defined by our standards as Christians; we ARE defined by Christ in us! If standards were what made us a special people, anyone who got a list of them and obeyed them flawlessly would be special by that definition. I can only speak for myself in the entire world, but I do not consider myself a follower of Christ because I keep a set of standards given to us to follow by the ministry. I consider myself a follower of Christ because I am a follower of Christ. When I was a child, I prayed to Jesus for Him to come into my heart, not to the pastor for a list of fashion dos and don'ts. To state that anything other than Christ is the foundation of my faith reduces it to the level of any contemporary made-up religion out there. I might as well be a Jedi if dress is all that we are.
I am not perfect, far from it. I also freely admit that I might be wrong on all four of my points. Please, if I am, explain to me how so, so that I can know more than I do now. This stance however is not one I share with bureaucrats and traditionalists who will staunchly defend their position, sure of their infallibility despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. How sad.
To make a point, I intend to misquote a scripture. I do not advocate doing this for any other reason than to make a point. (Rom. 12:2) most assuredly does not read: "Be not conformed to this world, but be ye conformed to a set of standards developed by a man, so ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God, which comes to us through the ministry." No, this scripture says to be transformed by the renewing of your mind. I became something different than I was before. I became a new creature, one born of the Spirit and I'm continuing to grow. If I'm doing something wrong, I know it. I can understand what Paul meant when he wrote "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do." (Rom. 7:19) People don't need an arbitrary definition of sin.
Providing one promotes an inward focus that isn't inline with spreading the Gospel. Spreading the Gospel means to tell the good news, not teach people how to dress or to look down on people because of how they dress. Many other groups have made this mistake as well, and dress codes for some reason become such a large portion of what that movement is about, that the Gospel just gets lost somewhere. If you were honestly searching for Jesus, are the Amish the first place you would look to find him?
Reading this post you might conclude that I am some kind of anti-ministry anarchist but nothing can be further from the truth. Our body often refers to pastors as "the man of God" and also seems to use many scriptures referencing the kings of Israel when referring to these men. I only want to state that there is really, truly only one "Man of God", and my pastor isn't him. I will never refer to him as the man of God. However, if you must insist on treating pastors similarly to kings of Israel, remember Israel had good kings and wicked kings. That might hit too close to home if you really think about it. Furthermore, if you insist on putting pastors into the roll of the man of God, you have created a system that over each church is an infallible little pope. This denies the moving of the Spirit and this denies Christ. This is what I am against.
The truth about modesty is that if you put the fruit before the tree, it's not a fruit of that tree. What I mean by this is that a Christian is expected to grown throughout their spiritual life and to progress and to come higher. To expect the same fruit from a sapling as you would from an old growth tree is not only foolish, but also detrimental. Allowing people to grow into an understanding of Biblical modesty might just change the way that a congregation looks, but it will allow people to feel out the Spirit in a new way. It will also lessen the impact of a great sin, the sin of pride. A feeling of superiority because of an over emphasis of a dress standard is rampant, and it is a sin. If you look at someone and think they aren't as much of a Christian because of what they're wearing, you are wrong. The old quote doesn't read "There but for the length of my sleeve/skirt go I". When did we forget about the grace of God? Grace is God's unmerited favor, so why do we spend so much effort trying to earn it?
Additionally, teaching modesty will help us clear up some of the cobwebs so to speak about this doctrine. How is a pale blue dress shirt less holy than a white one, or a yellow one or a pink one? What is the difference between wearing a suit or dress pants and a sports coat? Women have this harder than the men and I'd like you to tell me if you can why if a woman wears a skirt that is one inch above the knee or one that is one inch below the knee changes whether she is holy or not. I'd like to understand how the key to holiness is two inches of fabric. Yes, I understand that there is a modesty issue at hand, and I have a special understanding of this being the father of a daughter. I will just come out and say that there are some times that skirts of ANY length are immodest; this is why I direct my daughter to wear pants in situations where skirts aren't appropriate. This kind of issue is at the heart of what Bro. Farmer is trying to convey, though I kept it deliberately simple and would also not presume to put words in my brother's mouth.
By the way, the statement that someone will wear something immodest if you don't have a dress standard is probably true, but Jesus said "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matt 5:28). Someone who would dress immodestly because of a new teaching in modesty is merely showing their resentment to the old dress standard, they didn't just figure it was OK because we are teaching it a different way. They didn't start sinning when they started changing their appearance, it just started showing. Oh, and by the way, people aren't stupid. They aren't going to hear this doctrine and think the church is becoming a nudist colony.
There's no good place to address what I'm going to in the paragraph, but I'm going to state it here anyway. To those who have said or inferred that first Bro. Farmer is getting rid of all standards and eventually his church will condone wife swapping, you should be ashamed. From what I understand, the person who said this was a minister. I'm not sure about this, but if it's true, you shouldn't be a pastor. Your heart is not right.
One last argument I've heard is that we dress differently because we are a peculiar people. Allow me to post 1Pet 2:9 in it's entirety. "But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:" We are called to praise Him, not to dress a certain way. A dress standard is just not implied in this verse. If you think differently, please explain how.
Why is Bro. Farmer being so criticized when what he says not only makes sense and is Biblical, while the opposition doesn't and is merely traditionalism? Galileo Galilei once defended heliocentrism to the Catholic church, who held to the view of geocentrism. The church's interpretation of scripture led it to conclude that the Earth is the center of the universe. How did the church react to Galileo's defense of the truth? They condemned him as a heretic, imprisoned him and censured him. During a convention in September, the ministry of the body also attempted to censure Bro. Farmer, or more accurately attempted to coerce Bro. Farmer into self-censure, threatened to disassociate him and his church and threatened to remove him from a position of leadership in the body. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, they also threatened to make him sit in a chair farther from the pulpit. What is happening is that those who are speaking out are doing so because their place as the fount of God-given truth is being challenged by none other than the truth. No matter how you look at it, people don't want to admit that they might be wrong. So what this whole thing boils down to can be expressed in the following two words: Human Nature. Incidentally the question I have is how long will it take the body to issue Bro. Farmer an apology and accept the truths that he has presented. Hopefully it won't be the centuries it took the Catholic church to issue a formal apology to Galileo.
You might ask yourself why is Bro. Farmer being vilified. If you read Bro. Dyal's blog, you will not find an accurate representation of what Bro. Farmer said. As a matter of fact Bro. Farmer isn't the only subject that has been inaccurately represented this year. I would suggest to you to dig just a little bit and watch for yourself what Bro. Farmer has said, which you can do here: http://www.vimeo.com/4804181. It's a little discouraging to notice how little support he is getting during this talk.
In closing I will say this. Bro. Farmer, I pray for you often, now more than ever that you will stay strong and continue to take the heat on this that I know you are taking. I was really referring to you in my first paragraph about being brave, not myself. I support the effort you are making to bring us to a closer relationship with God and trying to clear away some of the heresies that have crept into our body. And finally, Bro. Dyal, I pray for you too, but I think you are wrong.
Over the course of the summer, Bro. Paul Dyal has been accusing Bro. Steve Farmer of a move towards dismissing holiness. What has caused this accusation? Bro. Farmer has been espousing moving out into a greater understanding of modesty than has been previously held by the association to which both of the churches that both of these men pastor belong.
Bro. Dyal firmly holds to a set standard of holiness, and Bro. Farmer has inferred that holiness should come from a working of the Holy Spirit within you and not from some checklist. The real issue here is who is in control and that's what making this so controversial. Don't be fooled into thinking that the issue at hand is just holiness. See the problem isn't a question of whether it's the ministry who are in control or the lay persons. No, the real question is whether the ministry is in control, or God is in control.
Tradition is being questioned! This isn't how we've always done it! These aren't the principles that we were established on! Our standards define who we are! I can't adequately convey the feeling of disgust I feel even writing these four sentences, but I will address each of them separately.
1. Tradition: Here's the skinny here. Good traditions are good and bad traditions are bad. Keep your traditions if they are good; traditionalism is a very comforting thing and can bring much stability. However, teaching tradition as if it has the same standing as the Word of God is not only stupid, but it is also sinful. The Bible calls this "the traditions of the elders" (Matt 15:2). If you from a position of leadership teach that not strictly adhering to tradition or opinion is a sin, I have one word for you, beware.
2. Bureaucracy: There is a difference between bureaucracy and unity. Striving to have unity and trying to do things the same way because it is the right thing to do is honorable. However accountability must be present for unity to be good. You must have an answer for the question "why?". Hebrews teaches "Obey them that have the rule over you", but there is no obedience without understanding. Uninformed submission is nothing more than conformity or brain-washing. Questioning your leadership is not the same thing as disobedience. Holding leadership accountable is not rebellion, it's wisdom. Those who follow bad leadership are as accountable as those who lead badly.
3. Progressive Revelation: A foundation is just that, a foundation. It is meant to be built upon. It is a starting point, not the end. There is an inherent problem though with Progressive Revelation when you throw people in the mix. People only progress to the level at which they feel comfortable, and when they reach that level, they stop and begin defending their position, regardless of whether there is something more to be reached for or not. Progressive Revelation is like an unending series of progressively better furnished rooms. When you bunker down in a room that is comfortable enough for you and ignore the door to the next room, you've stopped progressing. I don't have too much of a problem with this on an individual basis, but when a leader tries to keep anyone else from going through that door to the next room, they are wrong. They are no longer leading, they are hindering and leaders who aren't leading aren't leaders.
4. We are our standards: This is the worst of the bunch. We are NOT defined by our standards as Christians; we ARE defined by Christ in us! If standards were what made us a special people, anyone who got a list of them and obeyed them flawlessly would be special by that definition. I can only speak for myself in the entire world, but I do not consider myself a follower of Christ because I keep a set of standards given to us to follow by the ministry. I consider myself a follower of Christ because I am a follower of Christ. When I was a child, I prayed to Jesus for Him to come into my heart, not to the pastor for a list of fashion dos and don'ts. To state that anything other than Christ is the foundation of my faith reduces it to the level of any contemporary made-up religion out there. I might as well be a Jedi if dress is all that we are.
I am not perfect, far from it. I also freely admit that I might be wrong on all four of my points. Please, if I am, explain to me how so, so that I can know more than I do now. This stance however is not one I share with bureaucrats and traditionalists who will staunchly defend their position, sure of their infallibility despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. How sad.
To make a point, I intend to misquote a scripture. I do not advocate doing this for any other reason than to make a point. (Rom. 12:2) most assuredly does not read: "Be not conformed to this world, but be ye conformed to a set of standards developed by a man, so ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God, which comes to us through the ministry." No, this scripture says to be transformed by the renewing of your mind. I became something different than I was before. I became a new creature, one born of the Spirit and I'm continuing to grow. If I'm doing something wrong, I know it. I can understand what Paul meant when he wrote "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do." (Rom. 7:19) People don't need an arbitrary definition of sin.
Providing one promotes an inward focus that isn't inline with spreading the Gospel. Spreading the Gospel means to tell the good news, not teach people how to dress or to look down on people because of how they dress. Many other groups have made this mistake as well, and dress codes for some reason become such a large portion of what that movement is about, that the Gospel just gets lost somewhere. If you were honestly searching for Jesus, are the Amish the first place you would look to find him?
Reading this post you might conclude that I am some kind of anti-ministry anarchist but nothing can be further from the truth. Our body often refers to pastors as "the man of God" and also seems to use many scriptures referencing the kings of Israel when referring to these men. I only want to state that there is really, truly only one "Man of God", and my pastor isn't him. I will never refer to him as the man of God. However, if you must insist on treating pastors similarly to kings of Israel, remember Israel had good kings and wicked kings. That might hit too close to home if you really think about it. Furthermore, if you insist on putting pastors into the roll of the man of God, you have created a system that over each church is an infallible little pope. This denies the moving of the Spirit and this denies Christ. This is what I am against.
The truth about modesty is that if you put the fruit before the tree, it's not a fruit of that tree. What I mean by this is that a Christian is expected to grown throughout their spiritual life and to progress and to come higher. To expect the same fruit from a sapling as you would from an old growth tree is not only foolish, but also detrimental. Allowing people to grow into an understanding of Biblical modesty might just change the way that a congregation looks, but it will allow people to feel out the Spirit in a new way. It will also lessen the impact of a great sin, the sin of pride. A feeling of superiority because of an over emphasis of a dress standard is rampant, and it is a sin. If you look at someone and think they aren't as much of a Christian because of what they're wearing, you are wrong. The old quote doesn't read "There but for the length of my sleeve/skirt go I". When did we forget about the grace of God? Grace is God's unmerited favor, so why do we spend so much effort trying to earn it?
Additionally, teaching modesty will help us clear up some of the cobwebs so to speak about this doctrine. How is a pale blue dress shirt less holy than a white one, or a yellow one or a pink one? What is the difference between wearing a suit or dress pants and a sports coat? Women have this harder than the men and I'd like you to tell me if you can why if a woman wears a skirt that is one inch above the knee or one that is one inch below the knee changes whether she is holy or not. I'd like to understand how the key to holiness is two inches of fabric. Yes, I understand that there is a modesty issue at hand, and I have a special understanding of this being the father of a daughter. I will just come out and say that there are some times that skirts of ANY length are immodest; this is why I direct my daughter to wear pants in situations where skirts aren't appropriate. This kind of issue is at the heart of what Bro. Farmer is trying to convey, though I kept it deliberately simple and would also not presume to put words in my brother's mouth.
By the way, the statement that someone will wear something immodest if you don't have a dress standard is probably true, but Jesus said "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matt 5:28). Someone who would dress immodestly because of a new teaching in modesty is merely showing their resentment to the old dress standard, they didn't just figure it was OK because we are teaching it a different way. They didn't start sinning when they started changing their appearance, it just started showing. Oh, and by the way, people aren't stupid. They aren't going to hear this doctrine and think the church is becoming a nudist colony.
There's no good place to address what I'm going to in the paragraph, but I'm going to state it here anyway. To those who have said or inferred that first Bro. Farmer is getting rid of all standards and eventually his church will condone wife swapping, you should be ashamed. From what I understand, the person who said this was a minister. I'm not sure about this, but if it's true, you shouldn't be a pastor. Your heart is not right.
One last argument I've heard is that we dress differently because we are a peculiar people. Allow me to post 1Pet 2:9 in it's entirety. "But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:" We are called to praise Him, not to dress a certain way. A dress standard is just not implied in this verse. If you think differently, please explain how.
Why is Bro. Farmer being so criticized when what he says not only makes sense and is Biblical, while the opposition doesn't and is merely traditionalism? Galileo Galilei once defended heliocentrism to the Catholic church, who held to the view of geocentrism. The church's interpretation of scripture led it to conclude that the Earth is the center of the universe. How did the church react to Galileo's defense of the truth? They condemned him as a heretic, imprisoned him and censured him. During a convention in September, the ministry of the body also attempted to censure Bro. Farmer, or more accurately attempted to coerce Bro. Farmer into self-censure, threatened to disassociate him and his church and threatened to remove him from a position of leadership in the body. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, they also threatened to make him sit in a chair farther from the pulpit. What is happening is that those who are speaking out are doing so because their place as the fount of God-given truth is being challenged by none other than the truth. No matter how you look at it, people don't want to admit that they might be wrong. So what this whole thing boils down to can be expressed in the following two words: Human Nature. Incidentally the question I have is how long will it take the body to issue Bro. Farmer an apology and accept the truths that he has presented. Hopefully it won't be the centuries it took the Catholic church to issue a formal apology to Galileo.
You might ask yourself why is Bro. Farmer being vilified. If you read Bro. Dyal's blog, you will not find an accurate representation of what Bro. Farmer said. As a matter of fact Bro. Farmer isn't the only subject that has been inaccurately represented this year. I would suggest to you to dig just a little bit and watch for yourself what Bro. Farmer has said, which you can do here: http://www.vimeo.com/4804181. It's a little discouraging to notice how little support he is getting during this talk.
In closing I will say this. Bro. Farmer, I pray for you often, now more than ever that you will stay strong and continue to take the heat on this that I know you are taking. I was really referring to you in my first paragraph about being brave, not myself. I support the effort you are making to bring us to a closer relationship with God and trying to clear away some of the heresies that have crept into our body. And finally, Bro. Dyal, I pray for you too, but I think you are wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
