Searching for Truth, not Rhetoric

Nothing Really Matters

2011-04-27T12:34:00.002-04:00

Sunday morning, sitting back in a Sunday School room, I heard something that really got my gears spinning. One sentence said offhandedly (I think) had me thinking the rest of the day, and this one little sentence is the inspiration for this post. The fact that this was Easter morning meant that I got to see this lesson put in to practice immediately, which made it all the more poignant to me.

On Easter morning, we sang, we worshiped, we praised and we felt the Spirit move in the church. We heard the words that were said, read the Bible, raised our hands, prayed and did all the other things that go into a church service. As I sat there in my seat I realized that none of this meant anything at all.

Since it was Easter, of course there was a mention of the resurrection of Christ. The depths of the love of God that He would send His Son to die for us was spoken of and was a prominent theme in the songs that we sang. The foundations of Christianity were put on display for all to see and still as I sat thinking it would not leave me that none of this mattered.

Yes, you are reading correctly. I am saying that the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ are totally and completely meaningless. That is until...

"Until Jesus is alive in your heart, that fact that He is alive doesn't mean anything to you."

I may have not got the quote exactly right, but it's close enough and there is so much truth in it. On Easter Sunday there was a clear division of those present and I could see that towards the back of the church sat many people who didn't see the meaning in the singing or in the praise or in the worship. When the pastor spoke, or when the Bible was read or when we prayed, they could hear only words. When we raised our hands and the Spirit moved, all they could see was people acting foolishly. To these people the resurrection is nothing more than just some mythical event to be given no more credence than any fairy tale, the love of God is an antiquated concept germane only to their poor, old, deluded mother, certainly not to them, and Jesus Christ Himself is nothing more than a questionable footnote in the annals of history. None of what was happening bore any significance to them nor held any meaning at all. Jesus doesn't live in their hearts and because of it, none of what was happening really mattered.

There is a chorus that we used to sing that starts "There's been a change in me, a change in me. I'm not the one I used to be." This song speaks of the change that happens when you are saved and Christ inhabits your person, but it just doesn't go far enough, not nearly. The truth about Christian conversion is that more than just you changes. Yes you have become a new creature when you put off the old man, but there are further implications inherent in that statement. I can simplify what really happens into two words: Everything changes.

Those exact same words spoken over the pulpit on Easter morning are filled with a life that they didn't have before. Worship and praise gain a meaning that is impossible to conceive of before you know the Lord. The Bible becomes more than just a book, morphing into the living Word of God and furthermore you realize that He is speaking to you through it. Even the simple action of raising your hands ceases to be a motion to go through and becomes an act of surrender to God.

At the same time, things that mattered so much to us at one time "grow strangely dim" as the song so eloquently puts it. The true significance of what we cared so much about becomes evident and those very things that held sway over our lives lose their grip and are replaced by new things whose value is real. We see life through different eyes and it's only when you've reached this point that you realize the truth in the simple statement, everything changes.

While I'm sure that most of the people who sat in the back of church last Sunday morning were just there to please someone they are related to or perhaps out of some misguided attempt to curry favor with God by showing up to church once a year, I'd bet that there was at least one person who wished that everything made sense so that they would have a reason to believe. There will always be those among us of nominal faith or who really have no interest and that's fine with me, but it is those waiting for something to happen before they take the plunge that make me sad.

While I mean this post to be for everyone, really it is addressed to those who wait. If all you ever do is wait you will never find yourself in any other place than where you are right now. Don't wait instead make a decision. Either decided to ask Jesus to forgive you or don't and then move forward. One way or another discover for yourself the truth that either nothing really matters or that everything changes.

Put Five Dollars Worth In

2011-03-08T12:34:00.001-05:00

Everyone has their own reasons for the different actions that they take, but there is one thing that I've seen more than a few people do that has always confuses me. What I'm referring to is when someone goes to the gas station and puts a very small amount of gas in their gas tank. When I see this I really wonder why and for some reason five dollars seems to be the small amount I hear most often so I'm going to stick with that for the rest of this post, but I've seen people put a dollar or less in their tank which really blows my mind. Now I understand that if you can't afford more than a few dollars then that's what you have to use, but in many of the cases I've seen this is just not the case. Often putting small amounts of gas in the tank isn't a result of people not driving far, it's just a habit of bad money management that means they stop at gas stations more often. Why they don't just fill up their tank has always been one of life's little mysteries to me.

In today's prices five dollars of gas would be almost enough for me to make the round trip from home to work and back. It wouldn't purchase a full two gallons, and if I made a habit of putting only five dollars worth in my car, I would be stopping every single day for gas, always running on or near empty and would probably find myself running out of gas quite frequently. Because of this, I fill my car up so that I can go the longest time without having to stop again and I don't wait until I'm running on fumes to fill up again (at least most of the time).

While the amount of gasoline that you put into your car is not really a significant aspect of life there is an underlying mentality that can surface in other areas of our lives and this mentality can have serious repercussions. Specifically, I'm thinking of how much effort we put into our Christian walk.

Do we attend church on a regular basis (Heb 10:25)? When we are there do we participate? Do we get everything out of church that we can? Do we commune with God regularly (1 Thess 5:17)? Do we praise Him? Do we read the Bible? Furthermore, have we meditated on the Bible and made it a part of our lives (Psa 1:2, Psa 119:11)? Even if we do all these, how do we do them? Do we do them heartily, or just enough to get by (Col 3:23)?

What is our attitude when it come to our Christian walk? Are we putting just enough to get us through the day into it, or are we doing more than that? Spiritually speaking, are we running on empty or is our tank full? I've heard a statement that is just good old common horse sense, but it applies here. Serving the Lord hard is easy, but serving the Lord easy is hard. If we are only putting in the minimum we have to, how can we ever expect to get more than the minimum out? How much of our spiritual gas tank do we leave empty on a permanent basis?

Hiatus

2011-02-15T12:34:00.004-05:00

I realize that more than half a year has elapsed between my last post and the one before that, so I want to take a minute and address why I was silent for so long. Last August I decided that it would be in my best interest to take a step back and spend some time being introspective. In addition the comments to the last few posts that I wrote were spiraling out of control and as I read them through a couple of times I couldn't help wondering if I wasn't having a divisive influence that was not at all my intention. I want to be sure not only that my motives are pure but also that I'm aware of the implications of my actions, intended or not. This is really the reason that I've not written in so long.

Please understand that I took this action of self censure on my own and of my own accord. I've not been asked to quit writing by anyone, except maybe for whoever is pretending to be Bro. Dyal. A little bit of reassessment is never a bad thing and I would suggest that everyone does it once in a while like I have these last few months.

Even during this silent period though there have been a few subjects that have burdened my heart and I really feel that the Lord has been bringing these thing up over and over in my life as a call to speak the truth to anyone who will hear it (Matt 13:9). Simply put, last week's post won't be my last, although I don't know if I will be posting with near the regularity as I have in the past. It seems that if you have even a moment of down time life finds a way to fill it up, and I have many more responsibilities soaking up my time than I did a year ago, but I expect I will find the time to blog when I can. I hope you are looking forward to me writing again as much as I am.

Systems of Healthy Christianity

2011-02-08T12:34:00.002-05:00

The human body is a stunningly complex and amazing machine (Ps 139:14). It is composed of many members but it operates as a unified whole. When we study the body we break it down into logical systems that we can isolate and observe in depth. Some of those systems are: Muscular, Skeletal, Cardiovascular, Nervous, Digestive, Endocrine, Lymphatic, and Reproductive.

Each of these various systems provides a different function to the body as a whole. For example our musculature allows us to move and do work while our skeleton provides us structural support and so on. All of these systems are necessary for the body to operate at it's peak proficiency, and when even just one of these systems isn't working properly, the body's overall function is in some way impaired. Depending on which system is impaired, the body may not function at all.

I'm not claiming that there exists some kind of scriptural one-to-one relationship between physiological systems of life and spiritual systems of new life, but I do believe that there are similarities between the workings of the body and the operations of the church, each being a complex, multi-faceted system. I also believe that much like a broken body where one or more systems are failing, when not every operation in the church is functional, then that church is broken as well.

Many different facets present themselves to those who are willing to look, yet doctrinal teaching seems to be the one everyone focuses on. Why is is that we place so much importance on doctrine that we are willing to split ourselves up into group which we define solely by their adherence to or agreement with a particular doctrinal bent? Doctrine is only one of these integral Christian systems but it is not the only element nor is it the most important. Prayer, praise, worship, charity, brotherly love and the operation of the Spirit are every part as important as doctrine, if not more so. Just to clarify I do not mean this to be an exclusive list, just a representative one.

What good is it to have a perfect doctrine in our group if our churches aren't reaching out and sharing the Gospel to those who would hear it and benefit by being taught that doctrine? What good is knowledge or understanding when we forget charity or brotherly love? What life is there in doctrine itself? The answer my friends is none. Better a man be saved and his understanding remain imperfect than that same man have all knowledge and yet he is dead. I'm not the first person to make this kind of point either (1 Cor. 13:1-3).

When any of these systems are lacking, so to is our overall Christian being; this new life that we have hasn't been realized in all fullness yet. Don't believe me? Stop praying, break that personal connection to your God and Savior and see if your life doesn't get just slightly dysfunctional (I Thess 5:17). Quit praising God and even if every other system of your Christian life were operating at capacity, what would it say about you when a rock takes your place (Luke 19:40)? We need all these facets of Christianity in order to operate in fullness, and it is my observation that there is a least one system of Christianity that has atrophied almost to the point of non-existence in some areas in our group. That area is reproduction.

When scientists classify life, there are a few standards that are set that must be met, not the least of which is the ability to reproduce. Without that simple ability to produce new life, can anything really be said to be alive itself? Oft times the toughest hardship that a married couple could possibly have to deal with is the inability to have children and yet in the church the lack of growth is swept under the rug and conveniently ignored. If the church is not generating new babes in Christ then that church my friend is barren. It is lacking, missing one of the fundamentals of the faith (Mark 16:15).

Furthermore, there are churches out there who understand this particular system of Christianity even if they are lacking in other facets. It seems to me that perhaps we have just as much of a lesson to learn from them as they have to learn from us. Show me in the scripture that there is a second elite church, one that isn't called to spread the good news. How can we not follow in the footsteps of Jesus in this respect (Matt 9:35)? I think we have woefully misrepresented this aspect of Christianity in our lives (Mark 8:35).

Just a clarification here: A generational church that manages to maintain it's numbers through the begetting of natural children fulfills neither the statement "those who should be added" nor the mandate to spread the good news everywhere (Acts 2:47). Children born into the church are a blessing, but there are fields all around us ready to be harvested so I ask you, why are we content to remain in our own backyards? Are we simply to ignore these fields, that mass of humanity that does not really know Jesus because of a barrier that men have put between themselves and God called religion?

A friend of mine once said something very wise. She said that there are only two kinds of people in this world, children of God and potential children of God. Will we who personally know the lovingkindness of God refuse to reach out and chance to extend hope to a fallen man or woman? We are all tools to be used by God, but is our anthem, "Jesus use me, surely there's a work that I can do," or instead, has it become, "Leave me in the toolbox, I think I kinda like it here"?

Every Christian my friend has a great mandate placed upon their lives to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ to this world. I'm not saying it will be easy, in fact I believe that years and in some cases decades of neglect of evangelism will make getting back into this practice hard, but remember Jesus promised to be with you always and to fill your mouth with words when you need them. Be bold, be courageous, for you see, my Friend is building a kingdom and he has called you and me to build it along with Him. Lets get to work.

Let This Mind Be In You

2010-07-13T12:34:00.005-04:00

Some of the questions that I have heard being asked so much more often over the last few years are things like: What do you think he means by that? What do you think she is thinking? Without coming out and voicing it, we have been asking ourselves what kind of agenda people have for the things they say and do. I'm certainly not immune from this either, as I've been repeatedly questioned as to whether or not it is my place to voice my opinion over anything from the direction that our group is taking to the price of eggs. Truly, none of us are really excluded from this examination.

You see, an agenda is a sticky thing indeed. We question peoples intentions, and I won't say that we haven't had good reason, but it has started to get out of hand as of late. It's becoming harder and harder to accept anything at face value anymore, and that is a sad thing indeed. The reasons that having an agenda is detrimental is that if anyone has one, then it's theirs and you can be pretty sure that any personal agenda deviates in some way from God's agenda. How can we operate under the leading of the Lord when we continue to insist on leading ourselves? This my friends is a sure sign of one thing: Rebellion.

Much of our questioning each other boils down to trust. It has become increasingly difficult for us to trust each other as fully as we once did because we have become a people that are not as trustworthy as we have been in the past. The reason we wonder about each other's intentions is that there have been some who have given us ample reason to question and called them out on their words and actions.

I'm not the first to notice this or even comment on this condition, however I believe that I am among the first to suggest this particular solution for it though. I've heard some say that we need to start trusting each other again, and especially begin to trust and rely on our ministry again in the way that we once did. I disagree with this as the way to regain what we've lost. Instead, it is my opinion that we must become worthy of that trust and do whatever it takes to regain that trust. Trust and respect are earned, not given, and a broken trust takes longer to rebuild than it did to establish initially. Even if it is only a perceived infraction that causes a breakdown it trust, once a trust has been lost it can't simply be recovered with a directive to trust again.

Before we can become trustworthy again though, we must give up our own agendas and leave them firmly behind us, buried in a forgotten past. Instead of operating this way, we must become willing to be used by God. I'm reminded of the chorus that we sing at church, though it's been a while since I've heard it.

Jesus use me, Lord please don't refuse me,

Surely there's a work that I can do.

And even though it's humble, Lord help my will to crumble,

Though the cost be great, I'll work for you.

In order for us to be used, we must recognize what our place really is. Brothers and Sisters, we are merely here to be used for the work of the Lord in any way that He sees fit. Not all of us are pastors or apostles, but all of us have gifts and all of us can be useful. Some of us might sit quietly most of the time, waiting a time when He will have a role for us to fill, but if we are ready and willing to be used, when our time comes, He will use us.

I've written recently about what Jesus would have us do, but in this case I think it's just as appropriate to ask what Jesus would do in this situation. Paul tells us to have the same mindset as Jesus (Phil 2:5). Let's take a look at just how Jesus thought because there is one record of Jesus dealing with an issue similar to the one that we are dealing with (Heb 4:15). In the garden of Gethsemane, in prayer Jesus asked God to take this cup away from Him. He did not want to suffer the way that He knew He would, and yet, in the same sentence, without pause He added, "nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done" (Luke 22:42). Paul says that He took upon Him the form of a servant and that He humbled himself and became obedient (Phil 2:7, 8).

Can we not learn from this example? Christ Himself became humble below His true station and became obedient though His obedience conflicted with His desires as a man. If He could do this when He was everything, how can I not when I am nothing? Let us lay aside our agendas, our own will, and instead, in everything that we do, endeavor to be used by God, agents of His will.

Even though it's humble, Lord help my will to crumble, though the cost be great, I'll work for You. Let that be our anthem as we stride forward into a new realization of working within the order that God has laid out for us.

Emergency Post

2010-07-06T12:34:00.007-04:00

I want to draw a theme for much of what I'm going to write from Prov. 16:25. There is so much depth to this scripture, and yet I don't believe that we delve into it as much as we should.

There is a way that seems right to a man. A cursory examination of this scripture might lead one to assume that it refers to a man who is out in sin, doing whatever he want to do, but I wonder if there isn't more for us in this scripture than that. With further study it becomes evident that this man is not just reveling in sin either because of ignorance of a better way or simply because of the self gratification of a hedonistic lifestyle. "Seems right" stands out to me, and denotes that this man is trying to do the right thing; his intentions are good. He wants to do the right thing and is doing his best to determine what that is.

The problem that is described in this scripture is that this man is relying on himself to determine what is right. This scripture is describing humanism in its basest form and the arrogance that goes along with it. It is dealing with that ever so natural and universal thought: "I'm right". It is dealing with the condition of leaving God out of our lives and not recognizing His authority over us and His plan for us.

If people lived in total isolation from everyone else, this would be a minor problem at worst. However, add just one other person to the mix and the result is something formidable indeed: an opposing view. I don't care what it is over, opposing views will eventually lead to only one thing: a confrontation. Put it another way, if you have two people, you are going to have differences of opinion, and those opinions will eventually lead to a disagreement. This my friends is something I like to call human nature.

The reason we don't see more fighting than we do is because in an effort to grow beyond our own capacities, we've learned to suppress this just a bit, and have instead chosen cooperation and mutual understanding. However, all too often beneath all of our high-minded ways still lies the thought, "but I'm still right."

The arrogance that accompanies the thought "I'm right" can be summed up with the counterpart of that thought, which is "I couldn't be wrong". Arrogance is at the heart of what this scripture is dealing with, and it is arrogance that I will address today in this post. If I were to take this scripture, and rephrase it, this is how I'd do it. "When you're sure your right, you can be sure you're wrong, dead wrong."

If you are at all informed about the workings of our group then my title is probably not a mystery to you, but for those of you who are not, allow me to inform you. An emergency ministers meeting has been called in one month in Little Rock and the purpose of this meeting is a dire one indeed. It is the intention of some to determine who can be a part of the Body of Christ. If this issue wasn't such a controversial and divisive one, the thought that some element in our ministry actually believes that they are qualified to make this decision would be almost laughable (1 Cor 12:18).

Just a quick side bar right here. I've heard from some that the people today do not want to submit to the authority that God has placed in the church and that is the root of all of the problems that we are experiencing. There is an element of truth in this statement, but to state that this is the whole story couldn't be more wrong. There is another variable that needs to be factored into this problem, namely ministers overstepping their authority (1 Pet 5:3). Some of what we are seeing is a rebellious factor, but if you ignore the impact that just a few ministers who have overestimated their authority can have on a group of people, you are being somewhat naive. I say that with no doubt in my heart there still remain among us those who want to submit to a proper God-given authority. Some of the hesitancy to do so however can be explained by the perception of problems at the leadership level in our group, either corporately or in some cases locally. When there is so much turmoil and confusion, how can you not expect people to be somewhat unsure as what to do or who to trust? But I digress.

At this meeting it is the intention of some to attempt to purify our group from some of it's more liberal elements and yet the simple fact of the matter remains that no person or group of persons has the authority to determine who is or is not a part of the Body of Jesus Christ. God has amalgamated our varied elements into one special whole and His body is not the work of any one man or group of men (1 Cor 12:24). We need to wake up to the fact that we are not called to complete uniformity but instead that there are meant to be differences among us. Is the purpose of this meeting not in direct opposition to 1 Cor 12:23? Instead of distancing or disfellowshipping or whatever you want to call it, we should be seeing to the care of one another, lest there be schism (1 Cor 12:25)?

Schism, that is not a nice word, and yet it is a very real possible outcome of this "Emergency Meeting". Let me be very direct with what I am about to say. No minister has the ability to remove another from the Body of Jesus Christ, however based upon their own actions they are completely capable of removing themselves. What can happen is for a minister to be so sure that they are right that they will stray out from under the covering of the Lord. There is a way that seems right unto a man. Might this not be what is really happening here? Self-righteousness and arrogance creating such a surety of action that on their own a minister or group of ministers will head off in their own direction, trying to pull as many as they can out from under the pillar of God, only to wander aimlessly in the wilderness? I wonder.

I wonder if in fifty years my decendents won't be able to look back at this time as the time when a significant portion of our group got out from under the covering of the Lord? What will our posterity say of us? Will they say that this people was a stiff-necked and rebellious people or will they be able to say that we narrowly averted a split at this time? Will they say of us that those among us who sought to sow discord among the brethren held more sway than those among us who sought the fullness of Christ through the unity of the faith (Prov 6:19, Eph 4:13)?

Don't be fooled, right now we are headed at high speed for a split in this group and if we don't alter our course by changing our attitudes, there will be schism. It completely mystifies me that the very same people who seemingly espouse a greater unity for our group also wish to divide it (James 3:11). I ask myself, how can this be and I'm am left with only one conclusion. Those people who wish to do this are operating outside of the order of the Lord.

How can we avoid this? Paul answered this very question in 1 Cor 12:31, in the last half of this final verse of this chapter. Paul states "And yet I show you a more excellent way". This one sentence should really be the first verse of 1 Cor 13 because it serves as an often ignored preamble to this chapter whose theme is love. Charity my friends is the answer to the problems that our group is experiencing and the only alternative to a very probably split. Unfortunately, it is charity that we are sorely lacking right now, and not just within the ministry, at every level. Charity will not fail us, and yet I despair that we will be able to see it (1 Cor 13:8).

I leave you with a question and my hope. What will our leadership choose? A way that seems right unto them, or a more excellent way? Although I pray for the latter, I cannot say that I expect it. However, I will continue to hold out hope that we will forsake our own ways and will instead humble ourselves, pray for forgiveness and seek the face of the Lord. This way my friends and no other way will we see healing in our group (2 Chr 7:14).

Extended Family Just Around The Corner

2010-06-29T12:34:00.004-04:00

I recently came in contact with a pastor of a small church in Saint Claire Shores while trying to sell some stuff on Craigslist. We stood around talking for a while and he told me about the church that he pastors and we started feeling each other out regarding beliefs and such. I'm not sure why initial meetings like this always seem to start with quizzing each other on doctrinal stance, but this instance didn't deviate from the norm. Long story short, I told him that I'd be getting back in touch with him soon and that I'd be inviting him to one of our services that didn't interfere with his own. This was near the end of May.

Well, a few weeks ago, I called Bro. John up and invited him to service, and he came to our Sunday night service the first Sunday this June. It was a good service, and Bro. John spoke briefly, and I'm sure felt welcome. I would be totally remiss if I didn't mention the way this man can play the piano. It was wonderful. Several people mentioned to me that he seemed to fit in very well, and I agree, just like dealing with home people.

I went out for some coffee with Bro. John after the service and we sat down and had a good discussion for a couple hours. We talked about the futures of each of our churches and how we could positively effect our churches. He also told me his own testimony, which I hope he tells at my own church one day, so I won't repeat it here. It was an excellent night, and I gave him my promise that I would visit his church as soon as I had a chance.

This last Sunday I had an opening in my schedule and I visited his church right after our own morning service. I find it more than a little bit ironic just how simple it is to get from my own church to his. Turn left out of the church parking lot, head east about 10 miles, it's on the right. I arrived only ten minutes before the beginning of the service and as I arrived, Bro. John met me at the door and welcomed me in. I sat down and several of the folks in the church came over and introduced themselves and they all made me feel very welcome. I was very much impressed by the people there and their outgoing friendliness. The only person who was late I found out later was late because he was witnessing to people, trying to bring them along to church with him.

The service was very good. The people there were all involved with their worship and the Spirit of the Lord was evident in their midst. I have to admit, I've only heard maybe half of their songs before, but I sang along and so did everyone else. I was asked to say a few words and I spoke on Psalms 34:1-3 for maybe five minutes, partially because it is a passage that I have been trying to implement in my own life more, but because this church exemplified Psalms 34:3 so well.

Bro. John preached an excellent message out of the book of Ruth and drew some interesting points out of it that I'm not sure I've ever really thought about before. He also spoke about Jesus healing the daughter of the woman from Caanan, and his thoughts here were very good also. I particularly liked the references that he made to bread in both passages and overall the message was very encouraging.

After service, I stayed around just a bit and spoke with several people. They all invited me to come back soon and told me they were glad I had visited. Also, I spoke with Bro. John and his parents and it turns out that they had attended a wedding at one time at our old 8 mile church, and that Bro. John's sister is a graduate of TCA, which both myself and my wife are as well.

I don't know exactly what will come of the seeds that Bro. John and I have sown, but my hope is that a mutually beneficial relationship between our two churches is forthcoming. I'm looking forward to visiting his church again soon, and having him visit ours as well. As I said when I spoke at his church the other day, it's always a blessing to meet new brothers and sisters in the Lord, especially when they are practically in your back yard.

It Shall Quicken Your Mortal Bodies

2010-06-15T12:34:00.002-04:00

I have to admit that in this post I'm speculating, but I think that there might just be something to this speculation. I'd be interested in your opinions and experiences as well and I encourage any of you who would like to share to do so in the comments.

The question that I'd like to address is "What kind of physiological effect does the Holy Spirit have on our energy level?" I want to take a closer look at Romans 8:11 and get a better understanding of what Paul was saying here. Does the Holy Spirit effect us physically?

I've always considered the effect that the Holy Spirit has on us more psychological and not physiological, but now I question that. Sure, our psychology can have an effect on our physiology, I don't deny that. When we are depressed, that is often accompanied by lethargy and the opposite is also true, but I there isn't more of a direct effect and less of a psychosomatic effect.

I notice that Paul often speaks of the physical effects of the Spirit. He referrs to our mortal bodies in Romans, and when he is speaking to the Philippians, he says that he can do all things through Christ and to me that denotes action, not just how we feel or what we say (Phil 4:13). He told the Corinthians that the kingdom of God is more than just words and he Paul told the Ephesians that God has set his power working in us (1 Cor 4:20, Eph 3:20).

Why is it necessary for us to divorce the spiritual from the physical anyway? This strikes me as resembling Platonism and not proper Christian teaching. To go to far with separating the spiritual from the physical can lead to a poor understanding of doctrine. God created us as an amalgamated being and not separate parts.

One final thought, we very often seek for physical healing but hardly ever for spiritual healing. Is healing the exception, the only area where God physically effects us or is there something to physical blessings in other areas too? What do you think? Is there something else that I need to consider?

The Five Phases of Forgiveness

2010-06-08T12:34:00.006-04:00

Seeking forgiveness is an integral part of our lives. It is important not only to the person who was hurt, but also to the person who did the hurting. Obtaining forgiveness can be hard though, and yet it is the path that we need to take to undo the hurt that we have caused.

1. Recognition. In order to be forgiven, the first thing that we must do is recognize that we have sinned (Rom 3:23). It all begins with the ability to be completely honest with ourselves. Sure, we realize that we all have issues, things that we need to correct, however it must be more than just a platitude when we take introspection seriously and identify the sin that lies within us. Nosce te ipsum! Know thyself! The path to being forgiven begins with the recognition that we need to be forgiven (John 3:17). Only this way can we begin to mend what is broken within ourselves.

2. Confession. It is said that confession is good for the soul. In our first step we have in essence confessed our sins to ourselves, however there is more to be done. We need to approach the person whom we have injured and apologize to them. In this step we reveal the sin that we have committed, making it apparent. This tears down the edifices that we have built upon that sin such as excuses, justification and deceit. Only when the underlying sin is laid bare can it be addressed.

3. Excision. When we stand in need of forgiveness, it is because we have sinned against someone. We will never deserve to be forgiven if we do not correct our error. We have to address the root of our offense and correct it, or we have not stopped offending yet. Confession can play a part in excision too as confessing your sin to an authority figure or perhaps a good friend who will hold you accountable will help you stay away from the sin that you have committed. Sometimes this can simply mean avoiding the sin in the future (I Thess 5:22).

4. Consequences. Paul said "Whatever a man sows he shall also reap" (Gal 6:7). There will always be consequences for the sin we commit even after we have recognized, confessed and excised that sin. Yes the wage of sin has been paid for us, but this does not obviate the repercussions of the sin that we have committed. It is a hard thing, but we have to accept this burden. The only way to not garner these consequences is to not commit the sin in the first place.

5. Restoration. You can never go back, but you can move forward. Things can never be the way they were, but they can can be better than they are. It's hard to mend broken hearts and trusts, but what is the alternative? Only shattered hearts and broken promises. It takes much more time to rebuild trust than it does to build it in the first place. This is the part of the process where you make things right. Only here is there any redemption and peace.

So far I've addressed forgiveness solely from the side of the one who needs to forgive, but there is also a promise given for those who forgive. Jesus said that God's willingness to forgive you correlates to your willingness to forgive others (Matt 6:14,15). Forgive proactively, don't hold things against people and don't wait for them to come to you before you forgive them. Whenever you are praying, forgiving others needs to be a part of your prayer or you are missing out one aspect of touching God. (Mark 11:25).

Be a generous forgiver and quick to seek forgiveness.

By the way, I apologize for the alliterative title. I hope you can forgive me.

Another New Beatitude

2010-06-03T12:34:00.001-04:00

Blessed is the man who actually says something when he speaks.

Flip A Coin

2010-06-01T12:34:00.002-04:00

It seems to me that we've embraced a very narrow view of how things are supposed to be. If we maintain too selective a focus, we can miss out on truth. Enter a coin.

Flip a coin, heads or tails; it's a two sided decision maker, or is it? Is a coin as simple as yes or no, right or wrong, good or evil, or any other example of a dichotomy that exists? Often we complicate things for ourselves, however just as bad is when we oversimplify. Often the truth lies between extremes and is not just as simple as yes or no.

A coin does not have two sides, it has three. The technical names for these three sides are obverse, reverse and edge. Yes the edge of a coin is one of it's three sides. What is significant about that you might ask? Well the edge, much like the truth, is often overlooked, quietly escaping our notice.

For example, in our group there is a very conservative element. If I were to speak out about conservatism, I would be quickly identified as a liberal, which actually I have [1]. If I were then to point out any inconsistencies that exist among the most liberal of us, I would be labeled as conservative, and then as inconsistent myself because I was neither conservative or liberal. Labels like conservative or liberal are just generalities that lend themselves misinterpretation, and are not an adequate method to determine the truth.

An excellent example of this can be found in Joshua. When the Children of Israel were near Jericho, an armed man stood in the way, so Joshua asked him whose side he was on (Josh 5:13). The man didn't choose sides, but instead declared that he was come as the Captain of the Lord's army (Josh 5:14). Joshua could only see two possible positions for the man, either for him or against him. The Captain's stance represented neither of these two possibilities.

When we as a group are discussing something, whether it be standards or anything else, we tend to take sides and then begin defending our position. While this is normal human behavior, we make an enormous error when we do this. We assume that we are right and those who oppose us are wrong and we don't ever consider that we might be wrong ourselves. Furthermore, it never enters into our minds that both sides might be wrong. The logic behind the thought that if one side is wrong the other side must be right is not only flawed, but is responsible for so much misunderstanding between people that it is abhorrent.

I am going to show my point with an simple exposition of dress code. One "side" says that the way we dress it is our holiness and that a dress standard should be rigidly held to with no exception. Another "side" says that the way we dress is only external and that God is working on our hearts and that is all that really matters and a rigid dress standard is really unnecessary. The truth of the matter is is that BOTH of these sides have good things to say, but that BOTH are not the truth on dress.

Just so you understand me, I'm not suggesting compromise either. It is not my intention to declare the the truth of this group's dress standard issue lies somewhere between these extremes either. I will go on record that the truth lies outside of either of these views, and if we were to search for that truth, we would see much of the bickering and consternation that has been so prevalent of late disappear. We must learn to discard the "one of us have to be right" mentality and really search for the truth. You can't find the truth when you're defending your position.

Reference:

[1] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/root-of-problem-is.html

New Tools Update

2010-05-30T12:34:00.001-04:00

Just thought I'd showcase a few new Web tools that I think are pretty awesome. The first one is a website called LibriVox. While not actually a Bible webpage, LibriVox is a collection of audio recordings of books that are in the public domain. This includes all the books of the Bible as well as many other things. I've embedded the book of Lamentations as an example and just to show some of the other books, I've also embedded 1 Maccabees from the Apocrypha.

Lamentations

1 Maccabees

The second tool that I'm going to list is the Interwoven Gospels provided by Biblos.com. The Interwoven Gospels is a chronological presentation of all four of the Gospels. It weaves together, hence the name, passages from all four Gospels and lays them out in an outline that represents chronological order. While I don't think this is a substitute for the Gospels themselves, it can function as an excellent study aid when it comes to understanding the Gospels.

Just a brief word about Biblos.com. It has a host of different study aids and Bible translations available from it's website so I'm giving it a shout out as a good reference website too.

Finally the last site I want to mention is Net Hymnal. This site is an online database of the lyrics of many old hymns and is quickly searchable. The website interface is a little old school, but it gets the job done, and I find that when you are trying to wrap your head around a concept, or how to say something most likely some song writer has already found a way to say it in a way that sounds good to my ears.

Well, that's it for now.

WWJHMD

2010-05-25T12:34:00.006-04:00

I remember in the 90's that the acronym WWJD became very popular. It stands for the question "what would Jesus do?" and is based loosely upon a concept from the book In His Steps by Charles M. Sheldon. In this book a congregation makes a vow to ask themselves what Jesus would do before they took any action. An entire fashion fad began when bracelets with the monogram WWJD began showing up on wrists everywhere. You don't hear about WWJD all that much anymore even though the principle behind it was excellent.

What would Jesus do? Do you ever ask yourself that question? Would you do the same things and make the same decisions that you do now if you asked yourself this question? The same effect can be produced if you imagine that Jesus is right there next to when you do something. This works exceptionally well when you realize that He is.

However excellent this principle is, there is another level to our Christian walk that can't be captured just by applying WWJD in you daily life. This is the reason for my post today. This other facet can be defined by the acronym WWJHMD which stands for what would Jesus have me do?

What's the difference you ask? In all actuality they are very similar concepts and they sound the same, but there is an element of leading that is missing in the concept WWJD. If all you ever do is ask yourself what would Jesus do if He was in the situation you are in right now, you ignore whether or not you should be in that situation at all in the first place. When you ask yourself what would Jesus have me do you open yourself up to being led by Christ. What will happen is that you will find yourself not only making good decisions, but also in the situations you should be in.

There's also one more little issue with WWJD; you're not Jesus. I don't discount that it is important to make inspired choices in your life, but at the same time you can't live a productive life solely trying to imitate Jesus because if you do, that's all you'll be, an imitation. Please don't misunderstand me, I think emulation of Jesus Christ is a very laudable goal, but the real life application of this is limited. He made choices that you and I are not capable of making. We are limited, He is not. Whether you apply your own limitations to Jesus, or His lack of limitations to yourself, it is a foolhardy thing to do. Instead, a mature Christian is able to recognize their own limitations and will not only be better for it, but also open to the leading of the Lord and His working in their life.

Paul himself asked the Lord "What wilt thou have me do?" (Acts 9:6). It would be better to emulate Paul than Jesus in this case and ask Jesus what He wants you to do. At least that would be comparing apples to apples as the old saying goes. Understand though, I'm not venerating Paul; I've no WWPD in mind. I do however respect the example that he set for us, although he had to come to the end of his rope to ask it.

There is a song that the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir sings that describes what is missing from WWJD and what is added to WWJHMD, so as a close I'll just include the lyrics for the chorus:

Lead me Lord, I will follow,
Lead me Lord, I will go.
You have called me, I will answer,
Lead me Lord, I will go.

Washed in the water

2010-05-21T01:57:00.001-04:00

Cut Flowers and Fallen Leaves

2010-05-18T12:34:00.006-04:00

We go to the florist and buy flowers to give to our sweethearts or maybe to our mothers on Mothers day. Flowers are purchased for weddings and funerals or just to keep around the house. No one can deny how beautiful they are or the joy that they give.

Autumn in my area is a wonderful sight to behold. The leaves turn deep reds, browns, oranges and yellows and if you'll travel just a bit further north, you'll see pinks, peaches, golds and purples too. However just a week later all of the color is gone. All that you are left with is the dessicated branches of the trees that will remain bare all winter.

No matter how beautiful the flowers you buy are, their beauty cannot last because the truth of the matter is that from the time they were cut, they were dying. The water that they are kept in and the food that they are fed is only a matter of life support to hold on to what was a living thing before you bought it, but really it never stood a chance.

The branch appears dead and for nearly half the year exhibits no growth at all. It is exposed to the elements and there is nothing about it to make it beautiful (Isa 53:2). However when the spring comes again it will make a glorious rebound, first budding then sprouting leaves that nourish the tree. What was dead is alive again.

Appearances can be deceiving. The flower looks so vibrant and alive while the branch looks so drab and dead. The branch however is full of potential and life while the flower is doomed to whither and rot. So are many things in our everyday lives.

The ways of the world are very attractive and they can be very pleasurable, but their end is only death (Prov 16:25). We as Christians are to involve ourselves with that which is pure and true (Phil. 4:8). God doesn't offer gratification or even justification, He offers redemption and sanctification instead.

Resist the intoxication of those things that just seem good but are not. Test what you are being offered and be sure whether or not there is any life in it. Many are those who will be taken in by something counterfeit and it is a sad thing indeed. Be ever vigilant when it comes to what is true, you do not want to be deceived (1 Pet. 5:8). Remember that He makes all things new (Rev 21:5). Only through Jesus is there any hope for life (John 20:31).

Third Verse - An Observation

2010-05-13T12:34:00.000-04:00

Have you ever noticed something that may or may not just be coincidence? I have, and in this case it deals with music. What I've noticed is that many times the third verse of wonderful songs seem to stand out above the other verses, either artistically or spiritually and often both. I wanted to share some third verses with you as an example of what I'm speaking of, and in each case these verses have always been a special blessing to me.

The Love of God
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.

How Great Thou Art
And when I think that God, His Son not sparing,
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in;
That on the Cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.

He Hideth My Soul
With numberless blessings each moment He crowns,
And filled with His fullness divine,
I sing in my rapture, oh, glory to God
For such a Redeemer as mine!

Wonderful Peace
I am resting tonight in this wonderful peace,
Resting sweetly in Jesus’ control;
For I’m kept from all danger by night and by day,
And His glory is flooding my soul!

It Is Well With My Soul
My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

I'm sure that there are many other wonderful examples of this third verse phenomenon, and these five songs are just some of my personal favorites. Do I have some other deep message for this post? Not really, but if you are inspired to write something like these wonderful verses, I'd really encourage you to do it. Don't stifle what might be the working of God in you.

One Thing I Have Desired

2010-05-12T12:34:00.001-04:00

Just read through Bro. Steve Lewis' blog: One Thing I Have Desired. I'm impressed by the humility and willingness to be led by God. I'd definitely suggest the read.

All Things

2010-05-11T12:34:00.009-04:00

Our fellowship has known many troubling times through its existence and once again we are experiencing some turbulence. I can only speak for myself and from my own experience, but here at my vantage point I've experienced this shaking not only on the larger level that our group is experiencing, but also on a personal and local level.

The way we travel is a narrow one and at times it is difficult; it's supposed to be. (Matt 7:14 NKJV) If the way we were on was easy, that would only signify that we are traveling the wrong way. (Matt 7:13) There's nothing that says that because we are working under God's covering that makes us exempt from trouble or that we are due an easy life. If anything, we probably have a greater portion of trouble coming to us than some others might. (Luke 12:48) It is not out of character for God's people to suffer and we are called to maintain a proper attitude when we do suffer. (Acts 5:41) Our mindset should always be that we will press on, but when we do get overwhelmed, we will seek the Lord because we know that He will hear us. (Psalms 34:4) Run to the Lord, He will hide us and establish us. (Psalms 27:5)

I know that over the last year when things got hard, I learned to pray harder. When I felt lost, I learned to run to Him, and even though these times were fewer and farther between, when things were good, I learned be recognize God's hand and to be quick to declare that God is good. Now that I can see the beginning of the end of these troubles, at least on a local and personal level, I've still maintained a greater fervency in prayer, a greater sensitivity to the moving of the Lord and remained quicker to give God all the glory for what He has done. Also I've quit taking the good times for granted.

The shaking isn't over for our group yet, but I have something to say about what can come from it, and how we should endure it. In Psalms 40:1 David is reflecting on his trouble. When he says he waited patiently on the Lord, that means that he is confident that God will deliver him. This verse says that God inclined Himself to David, or in other words God looked down on David from on high and heard him. In the next verse David recounts how God delivered him. (Psalms 40:2) We sing a song "When He Reached Down His Hand for Me" and David is saying that God reached down His hand for him and took him out of his troubles and once again established his ways on the Rock. Psalms 116:8 repeats God's deliverance, not only from death but also from lack of assurance as well as the sorrow that goes with trouble. When God takes these things from us, He replaces them with something else: He replaces death with life, instability with a firm foundation and our sorrow with a new song, praise to our God. (Psalms 40:3)

So, in closing I say that we need to be confident that the Lord will strengthen us in our troubles and follow the example of the early church when they were suffering: CEASE NOT! (Psalms 27:14, Acts 5:42) Never forget that all these things that we are experiencing right now are our making, the process of a greater anointing. (Rom 8:28) I no longer question whether or not we will emerge from this shaking, instead I am assured that when we emerge, we will emerge better than we started.

I'm So Thankful

2010-05-08T13:45:00.001-04:00

The Fellowship Meeting in Warren, MI, just wrapped up and I've got to say it was great. God met us over and over in a wonderful way. The music and the messages worked together to lift the name of Jesus higher and to bring glory and praise to Him.

I want to thank all of you who have prayed for this church and for this meeting, and to any of you who couldn't make it, I hope to see you at the next meeting, and sometime before that too.

Draw Nigh

2010-05-06T12:34:00.003-04:00

What is the one thing that you could do (or in some cases quit doing) that would serve to bring you into a closer relationship with Jesus Christ right now? What are you holding back? What is that thing that you've kept hidden and haven't given over yet? We all have these things, myself included, and right now I'm asking you to be completely honest with yourself. What is that one part of your life that you know you need to give to Jesus today? You know what it is, we all do, and right now I'm asking you to lay it out in the open, if only to yourself. Please don't be tempted to make excuses or misdirect yourself. Instead, just honestly say to yourself, "Where I'm lacking is _____".

Next, decided that you are actually going to give whatever it is over to Christ. It's good to identify where you need more of Jesus, but you need to make a decision to do something about it. You've already been bluntly honest with yourself, so now is the time to decide that you are going to change.

When you've made the decision to change, just do it. Whatever it is that you need to do, just do it. If instead you need to let go of something, do that. What's going to happen is not only are you going to go through a period of improvement, but God is going to meet you where you are and lay His hand on you. Don't quit doing what it is you need to do; God honors commitment.

If we as Christians fail to do these steps in our lives, we doom ourselves to stagnation. It's better to give ourselves over by inches than not at all. This is your Christian walk, just don't stop walking!

When you've completed these three steps, start over. This is not a one time process. Never quit doing this, and don't try to do it by yourself. Rely on God to see you through, and you will draw nigh to Him (Heb 7:19, James 4:8).

Mirrors

2010-05-04T12:34:00.013-04:00

"Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life" (John 8:12).

I want to share a wonderful thought with you today that I hope strengthens you and encourages you. Jesus Christ is the light of the world and we are His mirrors. We have been called to reflect the light of Jesus in the world.

Paul calls us children of light, telling us that we are now light in the Lord (Eph 5:8). As children of the light, we have a great task to complete, and that is to spread the light to all the world (Mark 16:15). We cannot do this by ourselves as we have no light of our own. Instead we must strive to live lives that reflect Jesus well to the world. As the song says, "Can the world see Jesus in me?"

One facet of reflecting Christ is orientation; you must be pointed the right way. In order to reflect Christ, you just can't be focused on anything else. We are not retroreflectors (prisms that reflects light regardless of angle) and in order to function properly, we must be pointed directly at Him. If you have your focus on the world, or yourself, how can you expect to reflect anything else. In order to properly reflect Christ, we must live a Christ-centered life.

Another facet of reflecting Christ is occultation. Relax, I'm not getting all pagan on you or anything, this word just means that something is hidden behind something else. My point is that even if your orientation is correct, sometimes you can let things get in between Jesus and yourself. This will block some if not all of the light you are trying to reflect like an eclipse, it just depends on how close you let the obstacle get to you. If there is anything between you and Christ, remove it or move yourself until that thing is no longer in the way.

One final facet of reflecting Christ is albedo. Albedo is a term that describes how reflective a surface is. When it comes to us reflecting Christ, we need to look at how clean our mirror is. In other words are we keeping our lives free from the stain of sin that will detract from how well we reflect the light of Jesus? We should endeavor to maintain a high polish on our lives as our actions can cast a pallor on us, and what we reflect can become diminished. The proper Christian mentality should always be to remove anything from our lives that hampers our light shining.

A little more on how well we reflect Jesus in our life, and that deals with purity. When precious metals like silver and gold are purified, the way that the refiners know that the molten metal has reached the desired level of purity, the surface begins to reflect like a mirror. Only in the heat of trials do we become refined, and still during those trials, He always has His eye on us (Job 23:10).

I've used astronomy terms in this post because I see a correlation to the heavenly bodies that orbit our sun and followers of Christ. Just as everything in the solar system reflects the light of the sun and shines against a curtain of darkness, so should the children of God reflect the light of the Son and shine within a world of darkness. Christianity isn't just about us and any personal growth that we've achieved through Him. We must emerge as witnesses to the wondrous glory of God. If the heavens declare the glory of God, how should our calling be anything less (Psa 19:1)?

So I have a message today for the Christians, those who choose to associate themselves and give themselves for Christ and His message. Our mentality must be the same as that song we learned to sing in Sunday School. Our attitude should always remain "This little light of mine, I'm going to let it shine". Friends, shine on.

Work week at the Gospel of the Kingdom Camp Ground in Shepherdsville, KY

2010-05-01T13:31:00.001-04:00

Once again it is time to pay my small contribution to the Lord, at the Gospel of the Kingdom Campground. Workweek now happens once a year before the June camp meeting. I always feel a little bit sentimental as I drive up the hill, thinking about all Gods people over the years that have helped and contributed monumental efforts to keep the doors open for all of us to gather in an open General-meeting environment. God has been with our efforts to support the campground, but also he is “WELL PLEASED” with our ongoing and future efforts to make it a place of worship for all Gods people to meet. I feel inspired to do some history about the campground and just a few of the folks that have labored to make it available for us to once again offer a sacrifice to our King on Shepherdsville hill. I firmly encourage EVERYONE who participates in the services up there to help with the workweek efforts. Even if you have never contributed time, money or labor to afford members of the body of Christ to continue meeting up there, I think it would be pleasing to the spirit of the Lord to not continue to dwell in your ceiled house while the house of the Lord lies waste. Come up next week (May 3^rd thru 7^th) and help get the campground in working order. If you can’t come send an ambassador in your stead and if that is not possible send an offering to help cover the meals and materials of those that are there. I can’t mention how much I appreciate all the people that fought so hard to keep this place available. As I mentioned earlier in this post I am going to share some history about the campground and plan on making this available prior to the June camp meeting. The song comes to mind “If You Want To Do A Great Work, Come And Go Along!” Thank you Godfrey and Bro. Alfred Daves and ALL the other CHURCHES and PEOPLE that have sacrificed all those many decades that the bulk of our brethren did not support the campground or assist in maintaining it for use.

PS--Thank you once again to Bro. Dillon for allowing me to use his blog to share my thoughts.

Our God Whom We Serve

2010-04-27T12:34:00.003-04:00

As many of you know I attend Great Lakes Christian Church in Warren, Michigan. This week I've decided to write just a little about my church in order to clear up some misinformation that has been making the rounds. I've heard several versions of what has gone on in Warren and there's always an element of inaccuracy in each one. While it is not my intention to detail the events of 2009, what I will say is that important facts have been omitted, skewing peoples perceptions of this church [1][2]. The rumors that have been circulating have led some to question the legitimacy and order of this church. Thus I feel to write about the current condition of GLCC in Warren in order to give a more perfect picture of how God is meeting us today.

There is no one in our church that wouldn't recognize that there was great turmoil last summer. It affected us all, from our eldest saints down to the little children just beginning to perceive what was going on around them. I myself at one time did not see how we would survive the shaking and trouble that our church was experiencing. To be completely honest it wasn't until some time had past that I was able to look back with enough clarity to be able to see that Jesus had His hand on us even in the midst of our problems.

I think a good example of how we felt can be found in Daniel 3:20 as I'm sure that many of us could relate to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego when they were tossed in the fiery furnace. During the entire summer we were feeling the heat and while I can't say that I had the faith of these men at the time, I've come to realize that just like them, we had a Fourth Man in the fire (Dan 3:25).

I can't say for certain that all of our shaking is over, there may still be some aftershocks coming our way, but we are moving forward. Some of us have been hurt and those wounds take time to heal, but they are healing. I'd say that right now we are in a stabilization mode and we are still discovering that although we have been shaken, our foundation has not been and that we can still hold onto the solid rock. I can also happily report that much like after a forest has been devastated by a fire there come signs of new life, I see signs of new life in our church and an renewed expectancy for more of the same to come.

Earlier this year I got up on a Sunday night and sang a song to the church. I told the people that I was singing it because I could say that it had once again become true of our church. That song was Sweet, Sweet Spirit and thank God that when I sang the line "There are sweet expressions on each face", it could not have been more accurate. You see, our Fourth Man in the fire has never left us and we have begun to trust in Him and rely on Him more fully than before.

Just this week I've heard three separate stories from different people telling that when they too felt the despair and anguish that we experienced last year crushing down on them, what got them through was that they still felt Jesus with them. I think that each of us on an individual level as well as a corporate level have begun to recognize the presence of our Fourth Man in the fire, and we are being renewed because of it.

My church is not the same church it was even just a few years ago, we've changed and we are still changing but that change is for the better. We're becoming stronger and more sure of the wonderful things God has in store for us. We're becoming a closer knit family and our sorrow is being turned into joy (John 16:20). It is my estimation that we are becoming a church whose testimony has become "Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us" (Dan 3:17). The next time that this church is shaken we will look back to the last year and know without a shadow of doubt that "Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us".

I want to encourage those of you who are reading this who do not attend GLCC in Warren to come and visit us and see for yourself that what I've said in this post is true. The perfect opportunity for this is nine days away at our Regional Fellowship meeting, however even if you cannot attend this meeting, I'd still encourage you to come and visit us if you can. Don't rely on either the rumor mill or me alone to determine the legitimacy of the church in Warren, come and see that sure enough there is a Fourth Man in the fire with us and that He is continuing to meet us on a daily basis. Find out that regardless what some might say, God is not through with His church in Warren (Phil 1:6).

References:

[1] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/08/letter-with-comments.html
[2] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/08/are-we-leaving-established-pattern.html
(Note: I am assuming that these posts refer to the church in Warren because of the detail and timing even though they do not name us directly)

Reva Mears Montage from 1995

2010-04-23T15:57:00.005-04:00

A New Beatitude

2010-04-22T12:34:00.001-04:00

Blessed are the forgetful, for when other people are angry, they won't remember what all the fuss is about.

I Had To Write This Post

2010-04-20T12:34:00.013-04:00

I am going to tackle predestination in this post, not only to address what is an easily misunderstood doctrine but also to make one other point that should apply to all of our doctrinal teachings.

Predestination in a nutshell is the belief that God planned everything that will ever happen in His creation from the beginning until the end. An excellent example of predestination in action is Jesus foretelling the disciples of Judas' betrayal (John 13:21). Another well known example can be found when Jesus foretells Peter's denial of Him later in the same chapter (John 13:38). A strict application of predestination would state that these men were meant to do these things from the very foundation of the Earth.

The whole thought of predestination however seems to fly in the face of the concept of free will. I've heard from my earliest days in Sunday School that God created us with free will because He desired a people who would make the choice to worship Him because they wanted to. As far as I know choice has been a root of Christianity, and is taught as one of the primary elements of salvation. Do we not preach to those without Jesus that they need to choose to listen to His call and follow Him?

The debate that has centered around the doctrine of predestination for hundreds of years can be summed up in the following question: If every action that we take has already been planned out and God has predetermined what will happen throughout His creation, how can you say that we act as free agents capable of making decisions in our own lives?

It seems on the surface that predestination and free will are at least inconsistent if not in complete opposition to each other. I've even heard some detractors of the Bible bring up the subject of predestination as one of those contradictions or discrepancies that in their opinion disprove the Bible. Certainly it can seem that the idea of free will contradicts predestination, but in truth this is just not the case and is instead a problem with understanding.

The problem as I see it is actually a matter of pride. People assume that they can understand everything, but this is just not the case. The Lord's ways are above our ways and in some cases we are just not capable of understanding them (Isa 55:8-9). People often come into contact with this concept at great times of loss in their lives; an example of which would be the loss of a loved one. Most likely they will struggle to work out in their own mind why God would take this person away from them but will eventually console themselves with the thought that we cannot totally understand God's ways. We are able to accept on a base level when emotional trauma has stripped us of so much of our resistance, but when there is no emotional impact involved we struggle with it from an academic standpoint.

To imagine that we are capable of completely understanding how God set up creation is laughable (Rom 11:33-34). How can we really think that our understanding is actually on par with that of God (Prov 3:5,7)? This condition is prevalent enough however that we have developed a word to describe this way of thinking: hubris. There is also an aspect of this hubris where we impose the limits of our understanding on God as well. We are limited in not only our understanding, but also in our perception. Does our arrogance translates those limitations to God as well? Are we really so confident in ourselves that we think that our ability to understand somehow dictates God's ability to act? I think that unfortunately this is all too common a belief, and one God has addressed (Job 38:4, 40:2).

How can we know something that is unknowable? Paul seemed to think that this was possible (Eph 3:19). Is Paul speaking in riddles in this passage or is there something else happening here with this comprehension that Paul is speaking of (Eph 3:17-18)? Instead of a full understanding, Paul is referencing an appreciation of the fact that God is not only more capable than us, He is more capable than we can conceive (Eph 3:20). It is possible to know a thing and not completely understand all of it's design and harmonious inner workings. How much more the thoughts of God (1 Cor 2:11)? Put your trust in Him.

Personally speaking I do not find it in any way incongruous to believe that God is capable of predetermining His creation in such a way that it incorporates our free will. Ask yourself, is your God powerful enough to do such a thing even if you are not able to understand it? Ponder that question while we look at predestination at a personal level.

Let's assume for a minute that there is a real difference between free will and predestination for arguments sake. Unless you had explicit, detailed knowledge of the future, your ignorance of said future would render the difference between the two a moot point at least to you would it not? What is the real difference between complete free will, and unknowable determinism? Conceptually they are different, but in any real life application they are indistinct from each other.

This certainly hasn't stopped people from perverting predestination doctrine in an effort to absolve themselves from personal responsibility though. I've heard this abdication of responsibility from both sides of the argument. On one hand, I've heard people who will justify horrendous acts as being predetermined by God in such a way that it seems that they are almost blaming Him. Atrocities have happened and well-meaning but misguided individuals have either stated that these actions are the judgment of God or might point out that if it was not in God's plan, He would have stopped it. In essence, they are stating that God is responsible for actions perpetrated by people. On the flip side I've heard people ignore their own responsibilities to live productive lives for Christ, and instead using reliance on Christ as if it were some kind of a all-encompassing waiver. I saw an example of this in high school when one of my friends told me that she did not see any reason to try to tell anyone about Jesus because He was capable of adding to the church as He saw fit which was an obvious misuse of Acts 2:47 (BTW, I questioned her about this further and this is really how she had been taught at her church). In both cases, people were more than willing to abuse the doctrine of predestination to dump the responsibility of their actions, or lack thereof, squarely on God's shoulders, and in some cases the blame too. This is just despicable.

This brings me to my other point. Our doctrines as well as our actions should bring glory to God and not reproach. In my examples of how the doctrine of predestination can be misunderstood it is important to realize that these applications can be logically derived from how predestination is actually taught in many churches (it certainly was in the case of my friend). This being true, this understanding of predestination has in it an inherent application that brings reproach to God. If for no other reason this is enough in my estimation to bring this doctrine into question. Yes, I do understand that people can misunderstand any doctrine and any scripture can be misused, but in this case the applications can be inferred by how the doctrine is taught. This to me is indicative of a faulty doctrine.

Instead, how much better to believe that yes we are responsible for our actions because of free will and that the predestination in creation exists as a greater level than we do (not that it does not apply to us)? This brings glory to God in our recognition of just how great He really is and it keeps us aware of our role in His plan (Isa 64:8). Should this qualification not be one of the measurements by which we determine whether a doctrine is good or not? Should we not endeavor to glorify God in every aspect of our lives, especially our doctrine? I certainly think so.

You're Invited

2010-04-18T12:34:00.000-04:00

I just wanted to remind anyone who reads this blog that Great Lakes Christian Church in Warren, MI, is having a Regional Fellowship Meeting on May 6-8. I am inviting you to attend our meeting, if you can and are not already attending the meeting in Beaverton, OR. Consider this my personal invitation to you to join us in fellowship and worship and if you are interested, you can click the links I've listed above. They will take you to a Facebook group and the church's website for more information, or you can contact me through the comments for this post.

I look forward to seeing you there. If you're looking for me btw, I'll be in the band during services, probably cutting up.

The Local Expression

2010-04-15T12:34:00.005-04:00

I think this post will be my last follow up to A Remnant and Consider the Sources. I believe that this post wraps up the subject well, although I'm sure that there are aspects that I haven't yet discussed, but I'm not the only person speaking so I'll leave that to someone else.

How do you define our group of people? On the whole we call ourselves the Body of Christ. I've said that we use this term much in the way that denominational churches refers to the greater organization of which they are a part, and frankly many of us do. I've also said we are a special group, and I won't rehash this here, but this remains my opinion. But really, how would you define our group?

We are the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), however it seems that we don't really have much say so in the matter (1 Cor. 12:18). Does it surprise you to think that not only is God in control, but that He takes an active role in the development of the Body of Christ? How much more that it pleases Him to set the members in His order, by His design? Why then would we attempt to dictate what is and what is not the Body of Christ? This exclusivity that some espouse which dictates that this group of people whom Paul calls the Body of Christ must be derived solely from our rank and file is hogwash. I don't doubt that people in our group help comprise the Body of Christ, but to think that no one else who bears the name Christian could ever qualify for that distinction and that instead they partake in some lesser Christianity is nothing other than a superiority complex on our part. This my friends is not only prideful in the extreme, it is also ludicrous.

When did we start subdividing Christianity anyway? When did statements like "It's our group and not some other group that is special" or "This denomination has this doctrine here wrong and that's why the can't be used by God" become part of our lives? The truth is that we are all one body (1 Cor. 12:12-13). Additionally, this body that we are all a part of is not a homogeneous body (1 Cor. 12:14). Instead it is a varied body, and all parts of it are important and to say that one part is more important than another or that one part of it is not valuable is wrong (1 Cor. 12:20-21). Does this not apply to everyone, or did the translators miss an "if" and some kind of qualifier when they were translating verse 31?

Some of you might have problems with me using 1 Cor. 12 to address denominational divisions because Paul is obviously dealing with the church in Corinth and not the greater amalgamation of churches that comprised Christianity in the first century. Although I think that not only this chapter but also 1 Cor. 3:4-6,9,11 can apply, I agree that 1 Cor. 12 is not addressing large organizational divisions like those that are present in contemporary Christianity. I recognize that 1 Corinthians was addressed to a local church quite clearly and this is in fact one of the points I so very much want to bring out. Although Paul is addressing the Body of Christ in this chapter, he is doing so on a strictly local level. Strangely enough, all of Paul's epistles seem to be addressed either to a local church or an individual and not to the Body of Christ at large. Why do you think this is?

Let me pose a question. Is it the members that define the Body of Christ or the Body of Christ that define the members? I know that I am getting off into philosophy here, but the issue at hand is fundamental, and a greater understanding must be built upon a firm foundation in order for it to be correct. Let's look at the phrase "building blocks" and consider it's meaning. I think this is a good thought as Jesus is called the stone that has become the head of the corner and Paul refers to himself as a master builder(Luke 20:17, 1 Cor 3:10). How does the progression go? Do I first become a Christian and then a member of the Body of Christ, or do I first become a member of the Body of Christ and then a Christian?

The Body of Christ is made up of individual Christians who gather and worship together in their local assemblies on a regular basis. This is why Paul addressed his epistles to specific churches, and not to the larger organization. I won't deny that our group is a wonderful affiliation, but you must understand that it is made up of local assemblies which in turn are made up of individuals, not the other way around. I believe that "the Body" exists much more at the local level and not so much at a larger corporate level. To believe otherwise puts the Body of Christ back on some pseudo-denominational level.

This stuff is basic and simple, but how you understand the Body of Christ will color what you see happening in our group. You see, someone who sees the Body of Christ as an organizational entity will make sacrifices on an individual level in order to save the whole. Conversely a person who is a member of a functional church that is under the covering of God will see injustice that is happening at a group level and believe that it reflects directly on their local church because they are a part of that group. You must understand that both of these examples are only relevant if you see the Body of Christ as some kind of organization. If however you see the Body of Christ as something that transcends organizations of men, it doesn't matter anymore. You see, while the leadership of an organization might have the authority to remove a person from that organization or even choose to reorganize in whatever way they see fit, no man will ever have any authority when it comes to determining the makeup of the Body of Christ. That will always remain God's prerogative. Additionally, our local churches are not called to be representatives of a larger organization on this Earth, they are called to represent Christ. The only reflection that matters to the true Body of Christ is that of Christ Himself.

Isn't it time that we stopped looking at the Body of Christ as a pseudo-denomination or any affiliation of churches and instead recognize that it is made up of individuals whom God has chosen in order to bring Him glory? Isn't it time that we stopped feigning control over things that we have no right to? Isn't it time that we who adhere to a Christ centered order actually recognize the order that Christ created?

"Follow Me"

2010-04-06T12:34:00.005-04:00

This subject has been on my heart for quite a while, but I've found it exceedingly difficult to put it to words. I've seen people struggling with this very issue over the last few months and as I've studied the ramifications of our actions more and more, it's left me disturbed.

You see what I'm writing today is basic, remedial Christianity. In the past I've tried to keep a merciful outlook on anyone who professes Christ (Luke 9:50), however there comes a time to speak out boldly for the cause of Christ (Matt 5:16), not in defense of Christianity but instead in condemnation of heresy.

The foundational moment of our Christian walk began the same way it began for those who came before us two thousand years ago (Matt 9:9, John 1:43). One day, we each heard the call "Follow Me" and it changed who we were. I'm not talking only about our salvation experience in this post though; I'm also referring to the primary instruction that we are given as Christians on how to be this new creature that we have become. This directive to follow Christ applied when we first started our journey and it still applies today. When we were saved, we were forgiven of sin and covered by the blood of Jesus; of that there can be no dispute. Still, it seems to me that how we actually comport ourselves makes a difference and is important.

We as Christians have been constantly besieged with definitions of what it is to be a Christian and instructions on how we must live our lives in order to be in God's will. However well intentioned these directions may be, they have at their heart a carnal element that will usurp the roll of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. As Christianity gets redefined along denominational lines, what has been said about Jesus becomes more important that what was said by Jesus, man's doctrines become more important than what is written in the Bible and dedication to the church becomes more important than faith in God. Herein lies a trap and it's name is religion. If we walk down this path we will find that we ourselves become the focus of our faith and not God. However if you discard the irrelevancies and background noise of the religion we call "Modern Christianity" and return to a personal salvation, what we are left is a very simple choice: Will you follow Jesus?

We are called to follow Him, and for some of us that's too simple of a commandment to accept. Albert Einstein once said "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." Have we become "intelligent fools" by taking the commandment "follow me" and making it bigger and more complex? Doesn't this definition describing exactly what the religious leaders in Israel had been doing for centuries by the time that Jesus arrived? Doesn't this definition describe exactly what religious leaders have been doing in more recent times as well?

I guess I can understand why people would struggle so much to understand everything about their faith; it is a very human tendency to want to analyze and categorize anything and everything and I can't see why this tendency wouldn't apply to faith as well. It seems logical to want to delve into the depths of everything and understand everything, but the truth is that this is not only not necessary, when it comes to following Jesus, it can also be detrimental if it leads us into a spirit of superiority (Prov 16:25). Having a perfect understanding just isn't a requirement of salvation (I Cor 13: 9-10). Still it seems that Christianity is not free from this natural tendency to understand and explain everything.

The real problem with advanced scholasticism when it comes to the faith is that if you are wrong on even a very small part of your doctrine, your error can skew everything else your faith is built on and who among us has perfect doctrine? A misunderstanding in one area will branch out into others and cause you be misled. This becomes extremely hazardous if you build your confidence on your understanding (Prov 3:5-6). This my friends is not how we are called to live our life even though it seems right to us. I'm reminded of the song "He Will Pilot Me", but isn't this reliance on our own understanding tantamount to saying, "Move over Jesus, I've got this"?

The very name Christian identifies us as followers of Christ or at least it should. It links us directly to Christ the same way that a surname links us to a family lineage. The scriptures talk of our adoption through Christ and how we have become sons and heirs of God (Gal 4:4-7). Christian is the only moniker I bear in regards to my faith; preference of any other descriptor in my opinion creates a subtle diminishing of what the title Christian implies.

Following Christ is our source of assurance, and our faith in this gives us hope for tomorrow. We are limited creatures who do not have the capacity to see into the future; we can only perceive our past. However we can trust in God when it comes to what our future holds. I'm reminded of financial investments that state "past performance is no guarantee of future results". In essence this says that you can't be assured of anything when getting involved with these products. When you get involved with Jesus however, the results are guaranteed and will not change (Heb 13:8, James 1:17).

It's one thing to say that you are a follower of Christ, but it is a very different thing to actually follow Him, and herein lies the choice. You see, Jesus called us to follow Him, but he gave us what amount to clear directions on how to do this if we are willing to actually see them (Matt 16:24). When Jesus said "let him deny himself", doesn't this imply that to follow Jesus means that you give up any agenda of your own and submit yourself to Christ's agenda for you? Jesus answered this in the preceding verse when He told Peter that he was focused on human interests instead of Godly things (Matt 16:23). I find it very instructive to delve into this a little deeper because what Peter wanted from Christ was for Him to set up an Earthly kingdom. This must be a common human fault because Paul also admonishes us to have our interests sorted out correctly (Col 3:1-2).

Unfortunately there are some that will not chose to follow Jesus. Some will come this way looking for what it offers them (Luke 9:57-58). Others will come, but make excuses that keep them from ever beginning their Christian walk (Luke 9:59-60). There will even be some that cannot stay dedicated to Christ (Luke 9:61-62). I am also reminded that not everyone will see Christianity to it's ultimate conclusion (Matt 20:16). It's a high calling indeed to be selected out as on of God's chosen ones, and it seems to me that if the called and yet not chosen are those who choose to not follow Jesus, then the chosen ones must be comprised of people who do choose to follow Him.

Perhaps it's harsh to call these people washouts, but the term fits. John records a mass of disciples that left Jesus because they had difficulty accepting the act of Communion (John 6:60-69). Interesting that we in our group also have some among us who have issues with this as well. Still, these men turned away from Jesus because they didn't believe. I want to reiterate this to make sure my point is coming across. These men's unbelief resulted in them not following Christ. If unbelief is endemic of turning away, then we see that belief is an integral component of following Him. Today, my prayer for all of us is that we have some of what the father of the son with the dumb spirit had when he asked Jesus to strengthen his belief (Mark 9:24).

Belief may seem like such a small thing and a simple directive to follow Jesus may seem almost wishy-washy, but I reckon that this seeming insignificance is our source of strength. I don't know why it is that it pleases God to use such weak vessels such as ourselves, but I know that He does. His strength can be our strength is we will rely upon Him (2 Cor 12:9,10). He will use us as He sees fit (Phil 2:13). And it's when we believe that all things become possible (Mark 9:23).

So as I come to the end, I have a question for you. Do you believe enough to let go of your own understanding? Do you believe enough to forgo your own abilities and strengths? Do you believe enough to set aside your own agenda and self-interests? Do you believe enough to dedicate your life to Him? Do you believe enough to follow Him?

Where He leads I'll follow,
Follow all the way,
Where He leads I'll follow,
Follow Jesus every day.

A Busy March

2010-04-01T12:34:00.001-04:00

Well, March is over and the Regional Meeting in Warren, MI is now exactly five weeks away. I hope that April will turn out to be a quiet month for me, but I'm guessing instead that I will spend a considerable portion of my free time (what little there is of that) preparing for the meeting both at home and at church. BTW, I'm inviting you all to come and attend our meeting if you can. There's more information in the link above.

I intentionally packed March with postings because I might have a bit of a dry spell. I posted every Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday in March which is a total of 13 posts (most posts yet in a month). I'm guessing, though I cannot be sure yet, that April and May will not be this busy. So I'm just posting this blurb to let you know. I'm still going to try to keep up every Tuesday and if I have something small, I'll throw it in on Sunday or Thursday. After that, we will see.

A Vessel

2010-03-30T12:34:00.002-04:00

It is important to know our place in the Kingdom of God. I never want to take on a "do you know who I am" mentality, especially with it comes to the faith.

I am merely a vessel to by used at God's discretion. I'm no great thing, but I am God's thing.

Jesus use me, Lord please don't refuse me,
Surely there's a work that I can do.
Even though it's humble, help my will to crumble,
Though the price be great, I'll work for you.

You see, we're all vessels in God's Kingdom and those vessels are all different and God can choose to use us however He sees fit. (2 Tim 2:20-21). However, if we are to be honorable vessels, we need to be counted among those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart (2 Tim 2:22).

I don't know about you, but I want to be used and I want to be pure. Psalms 51:10 says "Create in me a clean heart" and that's what I want. I know the alternative, which is to be cast out of the presence of God (Psalms 51:11).

We don't sing this song as far as I know, but it is a good song that reflects submission to God.

Change my heart oh God, Make it ever true,
Change my heart oh God, May I be like You.
You are the Potter, I am the clay,
Mold me and make me, This is what I pray.

Regardless of anyone or anything else, Lord let me be useful to You.

A Gift

2010-03-28T12:34:00.000-04:00

I can't remember exactly when it began, but it was sometime around the beginning of this year. Almost every day that I've woken up, I've done so with a song in my heart. The song isn't usually something that I've been thinking about, or even a song that is one of my favorites, but it seems that for the most part whatever song I do wake up with has a significance for the day. Even one night when I couldn't sleep and I woke up at 2:30 am, for about an hour I had so many songs about Jesus calming the stormy seas that it was the most enjoyable bit of insomnia that I can remember.

I'm thankful for this gift, and I just wanted to say so.

My Prayer Closet

2010-03-25T12:34:00.002-04:00

I'm sitting here and considering the soft and quiet times that I spend with my Lord. Whether it's a hymn or a scripture that catches my attention or even just a quiet moment in my day, I often find myself taking even just a few minutes to commune with Jesus.

I simply have too busy of a life not to take every chance I get to say a quick prayer, or even just close my eyes for a moment and reflect on the goodness of God. I don't have an actual prayer closet, instead I take my prayer closet along with me wherever I go. Sometimes you can find my prayer closet in my car, sometimes it's in my cubical at work, there are even times that you can find my prayer closet riding along in a shopping cart.

I thought I was only going to copy one stanza of the following song into this post to wrap it up, but as I read each following verse, I found that I had to put the whole song here.

Take time to be holy, speak oft with thy Lord;
Abide in Him always, and feed on His Word.
Make friends of God’s children, help those who are weak,
Forgetting in nothing His blessing to seek.

Take time to be holy, the world rushes on;
Spend much time in secret, with Jesus alone.
By looking to Jesus, like Him thou shalt be;
Thy friends in thy conduct His likeness shall see.

Take time to be holy, let Him be thy Guide;
And run not before Him, whatever betide.
In joy or in sorrow, still follow the Lord,
And, looking to Jesus, still trust in His Word.

Take time to be holy, be calm in thy soul,
Each thought and each motive beneath His control.
Thus led by His Spirit to fountains of love,
Thou soon shalt be fitted for service above.

My friend, take some time today to be alone with Jesus wherever you are.

A Remnant

2010-03-23T12:34:00.010-04:00

In a way, this post is a follow-up to the post Consider the Sources. This subject has been on my heart for a long time, but more and more I'm noticing it on the hearts of others, so I am going to try to address some of the issues involved. To really delve into the full depths of this subject properly is probably beyond my abilities, nevertheless I will try.

It seems to me that our group is in the beginning phases of becoming a denomination. I've said before that we use the phrase "Body of Christ" in a way that is analogous to a denomination. Bro. Shaw at the meeting in DuQuoin, IL, said openly to the ministers there that he believed that our group was organizing, which he also stated he was against.

There seems to be a rash of people just waking up to the fact that our group is made up of men, organized by men and even founded by a man. We've had the better part of a century to realize this, but for some reason it seems that this realization is only culminating now. What's got me puzzled about this is why so few people have caught on to this earlier. Still the fact of the matter is that there are an increasing number of people whom I've heard from either directly or indirectly that have begun questioning our group. Moreover there are some that are looking for a better alternative to our group, or even more subtle, an eventual escape plan. I have something to say about this.

I caution anyone who is looking to leave one of our churches regardless if it is for another church in our group, another church in another group, or no church at all, be careful. Reacting to a situation is one of the ways that humans operate, but that operation is often on an instinctive level. When you touch something hot, you don't go through the mental exercise of equating the level of heat with possible burn injuries and the effects that they will have on your everyday activities and then decide to quit touching what is hot. No, you just jerk away. Instincts are good, but they are not foolproof however. In paramedic classes I learned that stab victims will instinctively try to remove the knife which often causes them to bleed out. While they are making the move that will end their life, they still feel like they are making the right decision. An instinctive reaction to a new found disillusionment of our group has the real potential of causing you more harm than good and I urge anyone to think any step that they are going to take through, considering all of the ramifications before they make any move and to not succumb to an instinctive mentality.

Still, even if you are not operating instinctively that doesn't mean that you will make a good decision. Remember you too are a man (or woman) and just because you make a decision, that does not make it right or the best decision for you. Often it seems to me that we tend to make things worse for ourselves, not better. In my opinion, people in general have an uncanny ability to make the worst possible decision for themselves. If we as a race were truly capable of making the best decisions for ourselves there would certainly be fewer unfaithful spouses, divorces, crime, bankruptcies, unwanted pregnancies, and a myriad of other things that have enormous detrimental impacts on our lives. The fact of the matter is that we never see the full picture and are not capable of making unerring decisions. We have to settle for "the best we can do", but still there is another consideration that I haven't addressed yet.

God. I don't know about you, but God placed me in the church that I am in. I've had several chances to leave, yet I know that Great Lakes Christian Church in Warren, MI, is where God put me and regardless of my own opinions and perceptions, that is where I am meant to stay and if I were to leave, I would be going against God. I know that the vast majority of us feel that we are where God put us, and do not feel the Lord moving us elsewhere. I can't express strongly enough that reacting instinctively to a revelation that our group has its problems or relying on ourselves for answers totally ignores the leading of God. Those who have just reacted and moved off may have ignored God to the point of moving out from under His covering. This is why I urge caution.

I've been directly asked on multiple occasions why I would stick with a group that isn't completely following God in the fullness that they ought and instead have made their faith about themselves. I admit that it's a valid question, but my best answer to it is another question. What other kind of group is there?

I had a brother say to me that he doubted that if Jesus himself were to come to a ministers meeting and speak that everyone there would accept what He had to say. He also seemed to have a problem with the fact that not only did I agree with him, but I told him that if this actually happened, it wouldn't be a factor to me as to whether I remained a part of this group or not. That really threw him for a loop, and maybe I wasn't being totally fair to him as it was early in the morning when I told him this and he hadn't finished his first cup of coffee quite yet, but I still stand by this. The leadership of our group is not the primary factor by which I determine whether or not to continue to be a part of this fellowship; No man is.

I hate to disappoint those who haven't come to this realization themselves yet but there is no perfect group that we can choose to associate with. To attempt to find one is an exercise in futility. Man's order is always out of order and when you are talking about a group that is made up of men and led by men, there will always be some of man's order in it, it can't be helped. All of those people who I've heard say "I'm here because I just can't find anything better" about our group don't understand that it wouldn't matter if they did find something better because finding it still wouldn't make God any better.

Let me reduce this down into its most concentrated form so you know exactly what it is I'm really saying. There were these twelve guys, you may have heard of them. Their names were Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, the other James, Thaddeus, Simon and Judas Iscariot. These men actually had Jesus right there with them for over three years, teaching them and leading them. If I could offer you the chance to spend three years of your life to become a part of that group and to actually sit under Jesus during that time, wouldn't you do it? Seriously ask yourself would want to become the thirteenth disciple?

Before you make your decision though, let's examine the situation more closely. James and John, the sons of Zebedee were concerned about what was in it for them (Mark 10:35) and about what seats that they were to sit in (Mark 10:37). It seems to me the other ten might have been interested in playing politics too (Mark 10:41). Peter was an interesting fellow to be sure. When he walked on the water to Jesus which was proof that Jesus could and would sustain him, he still let his faith waiver (Matt 14:28-30). Judas betrayed Jesus for money (Matt 26:15). None of the disciples could manage to stay awake when Jesus asked them to pray with him (Luke 22:45). Peter physically attacked a man with a sword (John 18:12). They all scattered when Jesus was captured, and only two of them had enough courage to follow even at a distance (Luke 22:54, John 18:15). Peter denied even knowing Jesus three times (Luke 22:61), and Thomas didn't trust the other ten disciples enough to believe that Jesus has resurrected (John 20:25). These aren't the only examples of how flawed the disciples were, just some of the most well known. After this reminder, would you still trade three years of your life to join them and be counted as one of them?

I'm guessing that just maybe the last paragraph might have dissuaded a few people from wanting to associate themselves with the disciples. Consider this though. These men were hand picked by Jesus Christ himself so either Jesus was very bad when came to picking disciples or He operates on a different level than we do. Have you considered that if a group of men who were this closely associated with Jesus could be so messed up, finding a group of men that isn't messed up must be nigh impossible? So why are we spending time looking for something that doesn't exist? Let me tell you how I would answer the thirteenth disciple question. I'd jump at the opportunity to be one of them, not for the twelve men that I listed earlier, but for the chance to be with Jesus. Jesus is what's important my friends, don't ever loose sight of that.

I'm reminded of the pillars of smoke and fire in the wilderness. Let me posit a thought experiment. Let's say that the tribe of Reuben were given the chance to skip the forty years of wandering, would that tribe have come out better than the other eleven? Let's consider it from both sides. Let's say they stayed in Egypt for an extra thirty-nine years and change and left at the last minute to meet their brothers just as they crossed over into the land of milk and honey. Alternatively, let's say they took off and made it to the promised land, and when the rest of Israel caught up with them they could say "What took you so long" and they all laughed about it over kosher BBQ and big pitchers of sweet tea? In either case would the tribe of Reuben have been better off? I say no. I say that for Reuben to wander off on their own, even if they had been able to skip all of the hardship that the wilderness had to offer, would have been extremely detrimental if for no other reason that they would have taken themselves out from under the covering of God. I would also say that even though wandering through the wilderness was a punishment for Israel, the covering being manifest in their presence day and night was still a blessing. Even in reproach, God is good to His people. We can't afford to ignore that for all the turmoil and infighting that is going on in our group right now, God hasn't stopped being good to us.

Somehow however, this whole idea begs a question in my mind at least. Why would God even work through groups that are flawed? More fundamental, does He? I would go back to history for part of the answer. Historically, every group that God has ever put his covering on have managed to find their way out from under it. The nation of Israel used to exist under His covering, but eventually they were carried away and fell into apostasy. How long was the early church in existence before it became apostate, a century perhaps? That may have been how long it took for the results of apostasy to become evident, but I would suggest that the seeds were always there. What I take from history is that not only does God tolerate imperfect groups, He works through them.

God's working is not impacted by the imperfectness of the group that He is using. Put that another way, He does not require a perfect group in order to be able to operate (2 Cor 12:9). The imperfection of the group that God is working through does not in any way diminish His greatness. Friends, God is not limited by us. So when I am asked the question, "Why would you associate with an imperfect group?" my simple answer is "Because God works with and puts his covering on imperfect groups of people, they are called His children".

And yet there is still more to this subject. I was talking on the phone with my friend Steve Lewis, and he made a statement that was good, and since I'm using it, I wanted to attribute it to him. He said that he wouldn't let any man interfere with his relationship to God. He was speaking about other things, but the application to this issue is crystal clear to me. When it comes to my personal relationship with Christ, if I trust in Christ instead of a man or an organization, my faith is secure.

Let me put it this way, have you been or know anyone who has been shaken when someone prominent and respected falls away? Sure we all wonder how they let themselves slide, but if you are impacted personally to the point that your relationship with Christ is effected, then aren't you building your foundations on other than Him? Those of us who were blessed enough to attend more than a handful of Sunday school classes as a child have been exposed to the folly of this idea. I can remember singing about the wise man who built his house upon the rock and the foolish man who built his house upon the sand. You have to understand that if you build your Christianity on Christ, it will be secure because it's founded on the Rock. However anything built upon anything else is some different -ianity, built on a foundation that will, not can, fail. Storms are going to happen in each of our lives, so why would we knowingly build ourselves on a foundation that is vulnerable to storms when we could instead build on one that is impervious to storms? The question to ask yourself is if you have been "too" shaken by someone loosing out, has your faith become dependent on the wrong thing? If so, beware my friend, that faith will let you down.

The same thing goes for groups. Don't let your faith become structurally dependent on a group of people, you will be shaken. Don't let this group or any other group become your source of strength. This applies not only the group as a whole, but also to individual elements of the group (1 Cor 13:8). I don't care how good a group is, it simply can't take the place of Jesus in your life.

Up to this point I've addressed how we should handle ourselves in the situation that we are finding ourselves in. Still, I want to address our current situation for what it is, not in a hope to divert our course from becoming a denomination, but perhaps as a reminder of what we are based on in an effort to slow it down just a bit.

I want to take you back in time to one of our founding moments. William Sowders had a chance to organize with the Assemblies of God in 1914 and was actually planning to go to an organization convention when the Lord gave him a dream. In this dream he was in a hayloft and was looking down at all the animals wandering around in the muddy barn floor getting filthy. The impression that he got was that the men who were organizing in Hot Springs were the animals that were mired in filth of their own creating (not the best mental picture) and that he was to remain separate from that. This was a very good message for Bro. Sowders, but I notice one more subtle thing about the story. God was telling him to avoid organization, not how to create a perfect organization of men. There was no better organizational choice to be had in that hayloft, organization was merely to be avoided.

But avoiding organization is what we've done, isn't it? Well, we've talked about avoiding it enough that's for certain. I've spoken on this before in Order, Organized, Organization, so I won't rehash it again, but I do have a few questions to ask.

When we have a "head table" where a group of leading brethren sit, are they not the heads of our organization, at least in situ? How does this jive with Jesus being the head?

If we are starting to determine who can and cannot be a part of us, I ask you what exactly is it that we are deciding they can or cannot be a part of?

When someone lays down specific guidelines for our entire group and says "This is the way", as has been suggested that we do in our meetings, how is that inline with what Jesus said? (John 14:6)

The reason that we find ourselves where we are right now is because we have misunderstood a purpose that God has imposed on our lives. You see, we do have a commission, and that is to spread the Gospel. Mark 16:15 does not implore us to build a church organization that blankets the world. We are told to let our lights shine to a lost world, not to stay holy by shutting the world out.

We seem to have lost some of this vision. For all of our scriptural scholasticism, we've lost some of the remedial principles that define Christianity, at least as a group. I am not worried about this however because even when the dispensation during which God is using a group is over, there will remain a remnant who will keep the faith and not lose out, and sometimes that remnant, because it has had so much artifice stripped away from it, can be used by God in a greater measure than the group that it came out of if for nothing else than because of a greater willingness to be used. In every age God sustains a remnant that will stay true to Him and praise His name as it should be. One day God will call a remnant out of our group as well. Actually, we teach this, though perhaps not in exactly the fashion that I have laid out to get to this point.

I'm almost done, but before I close I want to circle around to address one final aspect of this question that needs to be addressed, and that is why I personally stay with this group. I've called this group a good group and a special group, and although that has been questioned, I stand by what I've said that this is a special group. I have a reason for believing this, and that is because I still see the covering of God on this group of people. I still see God moving in and out of our midst, and that is just not able to be said of every group of people that attaches to themselves the name of Christian. Understand though, it is for no other reason than that God's covering is on us that I call us special. It's nothing that we have done, nor is it a quality that is intrinsic to our people. It is a transitive quality that will only remain on us while we choose to remain under the covering of God. Even still, if we do eventually move out from under that covering, I believe that there will remain a remnant, and if that is where I am supposed to reside, so be it.

Finally, to those who just do not find any alternative and decide that they still must leave, I leave you with these words:

Put Jesus first, first in your life,
He is a true friend unto the end,
Just take Him with you wherever you go,
Put Jesus first in your life.

Oh Lord, Hear Our Cry

2010-03-21T12:34:00.013-04:00

A Psalm for times of need.

You oh Lord are wonderful beyond our imaginings, more majestic than the heavens,
Merciful beyond understanding and sufficient to meet every need.
Oh Lord, hear our cry for we come to you now in our hour of need,
Turn not your back upon us, but see us where we are.
We prostrate ourselves before You and we know that You are good,
We worship and honor you oh Lord, great are Your works upon the Earth,
How can we help but praise You for You are the source of our joy?
Oh Lord, hear our cry, intercede now among your people.
We lift You up and glorify Your name, You are most beautiful oh Lord,
Redeemer of the lost and Lifter of our afflictions, see our need and do Your work.
Oh Lord, hear our cry, for we come before You clothed in humility and weakness,
Without You we are nothing, we depend on You each passing day.
You make a way where there is none, You are our strength and our salvation.
We come before you today with heads bowed low, Oh Lord, hear our cry.

Be Still

2010-03-18T12:34:00.003-04:00

I wrote one other post that was more of a testimony (I'll Keep Holding on to Jesus) and now I find myself doing that again. I'm not trying to do anything other than share how God has worked in my life and to life Him up. Perhaps this is not the greatest forum for my personal testimonies, but until something better comes along, I will occasionally make use of my blog for such. It is my blog after all.

Friday morning June 27, 2003, I received a call from my boss asking me to come and see him. I wasn't expecting to be laid off, but when I got that call, I knew that that's what was happening. I only spent about as much time in his office as it took me to drive over there, and I walked out with papers that stated I was no longer an employee of the company I'd worked at for over four years. To be honest, the worst part of it up until that time was just how taken off guard I was.

As I was driving home that morning, still before lunch time, what had happened was just starting to sink in, and I was started getting upset. I had only been out of work before for a week in my entire life, and I didn't have two children and another one on the way at that time (my wife was 8 months pregnant at this time). Needless to say this wasn't a good time for me to be out of work, and work in the IT field was just starting to dry up, especially in Michigan, so I knew finding another job wouldn't be a simple undertaking. I was starting to ask myself why this was happening to me.

I remember think all these things for about the first mile of my way home before the Lord impressed on me the second half of Psalms 37:25 "yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread." Over and over in my head I heard these words repeating themselves. I knew that God was really speaking to me and was comforting me and by the time I arrived home, I had a faith that God would take care of my situation and saw me where I was.

I was unemployed the rest of the year, and in January of 2004 I was starting to wonder what I was going to do. My third child had been born the August before (less than a week after the country-wide blackout of 03) and all my expenses were rising. I'd used up some of my savings and my unemployment insurance was running out. Still I was holding on to what God impressed on me so many months before and I was trusting God to provide.

In the middle of January I received a call an HR representative from the company I used to work for asking me to come in and interview for a job. I had had very few leads so I went in the next day and interviewed. It went good, but after the interview I didn't hear much for a couple weeks so I didn't think I got the job. I was really starting to get frantic during that last week in January because there just weren't that many IT jobs still and that was also my last week qualifying for unemployment insurance. I really wasn't getting anywhere when I got a call telling me that I got the job and would be starting on Monday. So I moved from unemployment right back to employment with my old company without a break in income.

In December of 2007, after working almost another four years for my company, this was all happening again. I received notice that the contract for the project that I was working on wasn't going to be renewed. This was right at the beginning of the auto companies trying to cut costs and somehow I found myself on the front lines of cost cutting measures. The problem was that in January of 2008, IT jobs in Michigan were even rarer than they were four years earlier, and I really had no clue how I was going to find another job.

I had put my resume out on just a couple job sites, and I received exactly one call in January about it. The job was an excellent fit for me, and even the auto company I contract to wouldn't change, I would just be working for a new contract house doing much of the same stuff. The job was even in a building I was very familiar with, so that was a bonus too. I interviewed early the next week, was talking to the recruiter that I was dealing with and the final results is that on January 29, 2008, I ended my stint at the first company and began working for my new company and even managed to double dip on that day, technically being an employee of both companies for a day.

All the while as I was wondering what my next move in my career would be in December and January, I was reminded of that same scripture, "yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread" and not only that, the scripture Psalms 46:10 also came to mind. It was as if God was telling me, "I took care of this once. Be still and allow me to take care of this again."

It may seem trivial to you that not only am I thankful for the years of employment I've enjoyed in the IT field, but that maintaining employment is important to me. If you have experienced job loss and unemployment, you know that employment is an important part of life. I'm thankful for a God that cares enough about me to not only provide for me when it comes to employment, but also cares enough to comfort me when things are not going my way and remind me that this aspect of my life too He controls.

Consider The Sources

2010-03-16T12:34:00.004-04:00

If I said that the sky was green what would you think about that? At the best you'd question my eyesight and at the worst you'd question either my integrity or sanity because we all know that the sky isn't green it's blue. The blueness of the sky is a fact and a fact is defined as something that is actual [1]. This definition implies that facts can be backed up by evidence. We don't use the word fact as much as we use the word truth but they are synonymous. When we are presented with the facts, those facts can be proved.

It is not my intention to say that I need external proof in order to believe anything I hear preached from the Word. I can just hear the comparisons to Thomas now if I were to say such a thing (John 20:24-25). I am capable of taking things on faith and I also recognize the blessing that this entails. What I'm talking about in this post is actually the other side of the issue completely. Instead, what I'm referring to is when we choose to ignore proof in order to believe what we want to believe. That is another thing altogether, deception.

Truth isn't dependent on sources. Something is either true or it isn't. Truth stands completely on its own. Truth is based on facts and is able to be proved. Truth isn't subjective or mandated. Truth can't be derived from opinion. Truth simply is.

Is it not our duty to research the veracity of information that is presented and to judge it against the Bible as a perfect measure (Acts 17:11)? Are we not to live examined lives, proving Christ in us else we be counted as failures (2 Cor 13:5)? Is not a fundamental change in us that allows us to test out exactly what God's will is (Rom 12:2)? We should examine what we are presented in all aspects of life and determine the truth of it, however it seems to me that we are blindly accepting anything from a "spiritual" source and blindly rejecting anything from a "secular" source instead.

It's wrong to judge whether something is true or not based on what sources it comes from and yet I believe that there are some in our group who do exactly that. To accept anything that is said over the pulpit as truth merely because it was said over the pulpit is an example of this. I'm not implying some agenda on the part of our ministry, merely being cognizant of the fact that our ministers are men and thus fallible. Somehow though, our group has begun to equate believing everything that comes across the pulpit with proper obedience and being "in order" and to question what we are told has become labeled as rebellion.

The flip side of this coin is ignoring fact because it comes from a secular source. A good example of what I'm talking about is evidenced in what some fundamentalist Christians say about fossils. Some say that Satan planted these fossils in an effort to lead us astray while others say that God hid them in an effort to confuse worldly scientists. Why is it that some Christians go to extreme lengths to disbelieve anything that comes from a secular source?

When you judge the truth of a statement solely by the person that is making that statement or intentionally discredit the veracity of a statement based on an unrelated quality of the speaker that is called Ad Hominem. Shane Clifford and I both have written about this before and you can see what we wrote by clicking on the following links: What Shane says about Ad Hominem and what I say about Ad Hominem.

Instead of having to be spoon-fed the truth, it is our responsibility to go searching for it ourselves (2 Tim 2:15). We should desire a greater understanding of God's Word and His will for ourselves, and we shouldn't be too reliant on any external extra-biblical source, including our leadership (1 Cor 13:8-9). Instead we should be instilling the Word of God in our hearts in an ongoing effort to grow in Christ so that that understanding becomes a part of us and changes who we are (Psalms 119:11, 2 Pet 3:18, James 1:21). Isn't this some of what Paul refers to as pressing towards the mark (Phil 3:14)?

Reference:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

It Will Be Worth It All

2010-03-14T12:34:00.001-04:00

I've chosen to live a life dedicated to God, and over the years I have become more and more aware that not everyone is going to be pleased with the choices that I make. This can make my life hard and complicated and fill it with disappointment and difficulty. And yet when it comes time for me to put away this life and all its concerns, when I hear the words, "Well done my good and faithful servant", that will make every struggle, every heartache, and every disappointment that I've ever gone through worth it.

This is my account of the hope that lies within me, for you see my God is worth anything that I could ever go through and is worthy of my highest praise, a life lived for Him.

Unity in Christ

2010-03-11T12:34:00.002-05:00

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." (Psalms 133:1)

I haven't always feel led to speak what God has laid on my heart, especially from the pulpit. However I want to be more responsive to the leading of the Spirit and as I've matured I've begun feeling a longing in my heart to be ready for when the Spirit does lead me. Continually I pray for God to impress on me what He wants me to say, fully expecting an answer. I wasn't surprised then when Psalms 133:1 was laid on my heart recently or not long after that when the verses Phil 2:3-4 and Psalms 127:1 were also impressed on me.

Perhaps I'm the only one that sees a particular theme in these scriptures, but I'm drawn to one concept, unity. I am left with a question though, what kind of unity are we expected to achieve?

The first thing that comes to my mind is doctrinal unity. We all believe that the Bible is God's infallible Word, but in each of our own local churches a wide range of beliefs and doctrinal stances abound. In just my own church, scriptural interpretation varies so much that the thought of complete doctrinal unity seems almost absurd. Furthermore, if a church can't achieve this unity, how could an entire fellowship of churches be expected to? I know that Paul told the Corinthians that one day we shall know even as we are known and that is wonderful(I Cor. 13:12). The only problem with this verse is that it has not been fulfilled yet, and right now we don't .

So if the scripture isn't talking about a unity of understanding, what is it referring to? Certainly not to something as mundane as personal preferences, our own likes and dislikes. Whether this applies to styles of worship, what types of music blesses you, whether or not you relate to a certain speaker, how long the services are, when they start, their frequency or any of a non-ending list of the aspects of our shared church experience, to think that we could ever be 100% in one accord and one mind when it comes to them makes the previous thought of doctrinal unity look like a breeze.

Does it seem to you to be a failure or weakness that our very diversity creates an inability for us to be unified in this way? Consider that there do seem to be some churches that manage a semblance of this type of unity, at least it appears that way to a casual observer. I submit that it is actually a blessing from God for our church that we have been kept from achieving this. I've seen churches that have attained this, but only because they focus so much on their doctrine, or their service structure, or their music, or their special programs, or guest speakers or whatever that they have lost their focus on Christ, some it seems permanently. As a result these groups have grown into stoic organizations and have ceased being New Testament churches. "Except the LORD build the house, they labor in vain that build it."

The fatal flaw with trying to base a unity on any of these things is that they all contain a human element which we refer to as carnality. What is doctrine except man's understanding of the scriptures? Aren't music and speaking styles really just an artifice created by men? Aren't things as arbitrary as service length, frequency and structure not set for the convenience of men? Even the modern structures that we call churches are constructed to service men not God. It's not because of what we can bring to the table that God blesses these things, He blesses us based on His love. How can we expect a church that is founded on carnal structures to be anything other than a carnal church?

So if by design we can't bring about unity on our own, where does it come from? Phrased that way the answer is apparent, but occasionally I like to be indulged, so I will continue. Since unity doesn't come from us, it must come from somewhere else. This unity that it is so blessed for us to dwell in of course comes from God.

These verses are extolling us to live in a unity of the Spirit. The thing about this type of unity is that I've experienced it before, we all have. I don't know if I could put it any better than the writer of this old spiritual did:

Let us walk in the Spirit,
And talk in the Spirit,
Let's be filled with the Spirit of God,
If we live in the Spirit,
And are led by the Spirit,
We'll be the children of God.

Walk, talk, live and be led; that's a high calling indeed.

Let the children of God be filled with His Spirit. Truly that's my prayer today, and the burden that's been laid on my heart. I can't adequately describe how heavy this is weighing on me right now, even as I'm writing this. I keep stopping every few sentences and pray for my church family for a greater outpouring of His Spirit. I sit here holding back the tears as I plead for God to send more and more and more of His Spirit. Maybe I'm failing in etiquette and decorum for not asking for just enough to sustain us, but I won't be dissuaded. I'm pleading for more of the Spirit than we've ever had before. I want to be overflowing, bursting at the seams, overjoyed, and to have so much of the Spirit that we can't hardly stand it any more, and then after that I want just a bit more. I want us to be out in over our heads, with no end in sight and to be going home from services tired and refreshed all at the same time. I'm praying for this kind of outpouring for our group now.

Two songs say so eloquently what I'm hoping for in our group. First in Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus, we're told that "the things of Earth will grow strangely dim", and in Until Then we hear that "these things of Earth are going to dim and lose their value." I'm looking for a little dimming to happen soon among God's people. Whether they are valuable things or just concerns, may we lose our focus on them, and get a renewed desire to set our affections on things above, not on things below (Col 3:2). You see, it's just not possible to keep our eyes on Jesus and on ourselves at the same time. Vision has always been fundamental to our movement and it occurs to me that having a Vision might have something to do with what we choose to focus our vision on.

Finally, its my hope that I'm not carrying this burden alone. I wouldn't want to think that I'm the only person that sees a need for more of the Spirit in our lives. Assuming I'm not, I'm asking you to join me in praying for our churches.

There Must Be Change

2010-03-09T12:34:00.002-05:00

Our group is a special group, I don't question that. We have it pretty good in this fellowship of assemblies. It's not a terrible place to be as some would say, neither is it a cult as some have claimed. We are made up of the children of God, people striving to do what's right as a result of the work that Jesus has done in their lives.

To say that we are the restored church however is just not true. I think that the majority of people in this group believe that we are striving for restoration, but we're just not there yet and this is a good goal (Phil 3:12). It brings a sense of purpose to our group and yearning for more than we have today when we consider ourselves this way. I don't know anyone who believes that we are already where we need to be, have everything we need to have, and are already the restored church made manifest. Simply put, we all have a way to go to get to where God wants us.

The truth in the last two paragraphs can be summed up by saying that to get where we need to go, we will have to change. Does anyone deny this? I don't know really. Are we welcoming change? I think not. In the Des Moines meeting last year, several ministers spoke out about fearing change, being slow to change, or being cautious about changing. I realize that some change is negative, and change just for it's own sake can often be exactly that, but if we adopt a spirit of intransigence, we will miss out on the leading of the Lord.

I'm reminded of the person trying to hold sand in his hands. The tighter he bears down, the more sand slips through his fingers. We are at this phase as a group. We are trying to hold on so hard to the things that make us special, the blessings that still have are starting to just slip away. We need to be willing to change.

I'm also reminded of the children of Israel in the wilderness who were always looking back to how good things were in Egypt and never how good things were promised to be in the land of milk and honey (Numbers 11:5-6). If God is going to lead us into a full realization of a restored church, He can't do it if we are stuck defending our position, unwilling to change. Let me take that a step farther. If God is going to lead our leaders into a full realization of a restored ministry, He can't do that if they are stuck defending their position, unwilling to change either. Bro. Atwell said in a sermon way back in 1983 that if in our Christian walk we can look around and see the same issues around us that we have always seen, it's because we have stopped journeying. I don't ever want to get stuck in a position where I've stopped progressing and the only positive thought I can think is how good God used to be when I was still under His covering.

We sing a song about wanting to move when God moves if we move, but I ask everyone in our group, is that what we're doing? I submit instead that we are either waiting to move or don't really have moving on on our agenda. I want to be willing to move on with Jesus, and the only way for that to happen is for us to allow it to happen.

Brothers and Sisters, There Must Be Change.

Plug For Two Excellent Bible Websites

2010-03-07T12:34:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but, I've incorporated some Java coding into this blog that when to hover over a scripture reference, it pops up the scripture in a little dialog box (i.e. Acts 2:38). This is a very neat tool, and it is provided by Bible.Logos.com. I see that other bloggers have been incorporating this tool into their blog, and I think it provides not only a nice little reference tool, but also can keep a blog a little less bogged down with a lot of quotations. There are instructions on the site for adding this bit of Javascript to your website if you are interested. However, this is not the only online Bible tool that I use.

My favorite Bible website is Blue Letter Bible. This site is my online Bible of choice. It has many of the same features that other online Bibles have, but has a few special ones that I think are really nice. One of the main good points that is has is audio Bibles (four versions right now), which can be started from any chapter you happen to be reading at the time. Also, every verse has links to Hebrew and Greek lexicons (depending on the original language), commentaries (many in streaming audio format), parallel translations, study tools, dictionary aids, and one of the most unique features, it has a hymn database that lists hymns that are derived from that scripture.

Both of these programs are excellent, and I like them very much. I highly recommend Blue Letter Bible to anyone with an internet connection. I'm interested in your favorite web tools as well. If you have a favorite, please list them in the comments with a brief description of why they are your favorite.

That Cleansing Blood

2010-03-04T12:34:00.004-05:00

I'm sitting here at my computer after just having moved a dozen heavy boxes and a bunch of computer monitors and I looked down at my hands and they are filthy. The stuff I had to move was more than a little dirty and some of the dust and grime that was on it transferred to me when I handled it.

As I was looking down at my dirty hands, I had an impression as if the Spirit whispered to me that these dirty hands of mine are much like a Christian who has to deal with the world. As the cares of life and the weight of this world presses in on us, we can't come away without picking up a bit of it's filth, at least on the surface. This "transfer" can do anything from depress us to influence our actions, but you see, we have a solution for that.

All that I have to do to clean my hands is to walk over to the restroom and wash them. As I scrub my hands with soap and water, the dirt will just flow away. When it comes to my life as a Christian though, hot water and soap just won't cut it. But there is good news brothers and sisters. We have a Savior, one who died for us and shed his blood on the cross and what soap and water can't handle, that precious blood can wash whiter than freshly fallen snow.

So when the filth of this world is clinging to you or maybe has just got you down, don't go trying to fix it for yourself, it won't work. Instead, go to the Redeemer and one more time and submerse yourself in that crimson flow that has the power to sanctify us.

I'm reminded of two songs that echo the thoughts I have for you today:

Search me, O God, and know my heart today;
Try me, O Savior, know my thoughts, I pray.
See if there be some wicked way in me;
Cleanse me from every sin and set me free.

and

Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go wash my hands.

"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"

2010-03-02T12:34:00.007-05:00

Sitting in Sunday morning service this week, Bro. Lord was going through several of the Psalms, and I happen to glance over at Psalms 7:11-13. This passage says how God is angry with the wicked and that if He didn't turn Himself away from wickedness, He would destroy wickedness and that He is actually ready to do this.

While I was reading through this, I had this overwhelming impression of Christ on the cross, crying out "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34). The utter terribleness of this thought just simmered in my head all day. In this passage we see that God turned Himself away from (forsook) Jesus, His holy lamb. Jesus wasn't wicked, but He took upon himself our wickedness, resulting in God turning His back on Him (Isa 53:6). The words "He became my transgression" just circled on the periphery of my consciousness the entire afternoon, and more of the depth of Christ's sacrifice was laid open to me that day than had been before.

Two things I took from this experience. First, when I feel despondent and the cares of this life have weighed me down, I am reminded that I am never really separated from the love of God. When Paul addressed the Romans about nothing being able to separate us from the love of God, I realized that not even God's own hatred of wickedness can separate me from God's love because Jesus took that upon him on the cross too (Romans 8:38-39). So, even if I feel like David, and cry out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", I know with out a shadow of doubt that even if I feel forsaken, it is just not true (Psalms 22:1).

Lastly, I have an even greater respect for the sacrifice that Christ made for me on that cruel tree. It effects me in such a way that I want to be careful of what suffering I personally lay on my Savior. Echoing the thoughts of Paul again to the Romans, not only is grace not a prepaid, get out of sin free card (Romans 6:1), I want to remember the actual price of grace that Jesus paid. Although He already paid that price, I want to live a life that minimizes the price that He did pay for me.

The Charity Checkbox

2010-02-25T12:34:00.004-05:00

There's a question that has been on my mind over the last few days and that question is "What is it that we want to be known for?" I'm not talking about a name, although that is important. I'm also not talking about what we will be remembered for after we are all gone, though that does play into my question a bit. What I'm talking about is reputation. What exactly is it that we want our reputation to be?

I understand that a reputation can either be true or false however in this particular post, I'm not talking about a false reputation. As it's been rightly explained to me, the only thing you can do with a false reputation is live it down. What I'm talking about a true reputation, the kind of reputation that is derived from character. Character is based on the choices and the actions that we make and that gives us control over what form our true reputation will take. So the essence of what I'm asking is based on our choices and action, what kind of reputation do we desire?

Do we want to be know as scholars, firmly rooted in all doctrinal truths? What about for how often the Holy Ghost blesses the churches within our group? How about as a church that prophesies or maybe one that does great humanitarian works? While any of these things would be good things to be known for, Paul said that without charity, they don't have any value (I Cor 13:1-3).

Just a quick sidebar here. Some of my faithful readers might notice that I like to go to the book of I Corinthians, especially the thirteenth chapter, and use the words that Paul wrote there to guide the words that I write here. If you think that lean on this chapter an awful lot, you're right. The thing is, just about every time I re-read this chapter I can find that there is yet another aspect of my own life where I need to apply these scriptures better. Well, let's go ahead and get back to my topic.

How many churches do you know in your area that have just given up caring? I'm sure that you know of at least one that makes you wonder why they bother to keep their doors open on Sunday. There are some churches out there just going through the motions for no other reason than it is the routine that people have gotten used to. A church like this is one that exemplifies the situation that Paul is describing in these first three verses.

Now certainly not all churches fit into this extreme, but I'd hazard to guess that finding a church sitting at the opposite extreme is a much more difficult task than finding a church that knows no charity. Yes, most churches sit on a sliding scale and fit somewhere in between, but I'd also guess that most churches on that scale are sliding in the wrong direction.

1 Cor 13:4-8 may be the most beautiful and awesome description of what it means to have charity working in your life that I've ever heard. One thought that occurs to me in this passage is that charity isn't an easy thing. Right there in verse four Paul says that charity suffers long. Many more modern translations replace "suffers long" with "is patient" and while that might be a more accurate translation, I think that the words "suffers long" convey a truth about charity that being patient just doesn't.

When I think about charity I tend to look at it from both sides. On one side of charity there is someone who pays a price to give charity to someone else and on the other side there is someone who receives that charity that didn't pay any price. When we are charitable, the cost to us becomes the blessing that others enjoy. We have a wonderful example of this exact thing that I'm talking about shown by the price that Jesus paid for our salvation. Because of this act of ultimate charity, He has been a name above every name and right there in that statement is the nugget of truth that I want to convey when I ask the question about what we are known for (Phil 2:9).

Works have been defended recently, and rightly so, so I will not go into a defense of good works. What I will say about works is that our works should be in response to our salvation, not to try to earn it, and the word that best describes this, at least to me, is fruits. Gal 5:22 lays out the fruits of the Spirit, or in my estimation the form that our works should take. Our works should represent these fruits and not only that, they should be a result of those fruits working in us as well.

What I mean by that last bit is that even though like Luke tells us in his second book it's better to give than receive, a truth remains that we must first receive before we can give (Acts 20:35). How can we produce the fruits of joy or peace as an example if we haven't experienced them ourselves? This is how we can perpetuate charity. When we show charity to others, they gain the capacity to show charity from us. Of course not everyone will do this, but what I'm talking about is the same fundamental principle resident in the statement "we love Him because He first loved us". If for no other reason, this should be our motivation, that because He loved us, not only do we love Him, but we pass that love on to others.

To explore how we can do this on a personal level, consider the idea of having a check list that lists the fruits of the spirit so that when we go about doing whatever it is that we are going to do, we consider these fruits while we are doing them. One thing I notice right away is that in Gal 5:22, the very first fruit is love. I Cor. 13:13 seems to agree with the assessment that love should be first on our list. Shouldn't everything we do be influence and led by these fruits, particularly love?

So I ask you, have you checked off your charity checkbox today?

The Work in Sevierville

2010-02-23T12:34:00.007-05:00

Brothers and Sisters, I'm glad to inform any of you who don't already know that God is opening a new work in Sevierville, TN. I don't know all the details quite yet, but I know plenty of the people involved, and I must say that I'm greatly encouraged for this group of people.

I'm asking all of my followers today to join me in supporting this new seed in your prayers and find out more about what's going on there yourself at: Sevierville Meetings Blog. There's also a facebook group which you can look at here: Sevierville Meetings Group .

For all my friends and family who are supporting or a part of this new work, know that you are in my thoughts often and that I pray for you just as often. It's my hope that my family and I will get an opportunity to come and join you in one of your meetings some time this year.

Something Just Doesn't Add Up

2010-02-18T12:34:00.017-05:00

This post is really a followup to the post Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say. I intend to go into some depth on a few items that I either glossed over or skipped altogether in that earlier post because I was trying to keep to one subject without wandering. I also want to make a note that some people might find some of the language in this post distasteful. I apologize in advance and actually suggest you just skip this post entirely and read this one instead. I'm only using the words that I've heard, and while that is not a defense for crassness, unfortunately we as a group have been dealing with some of the baser issues that men and women face today. If you do find anything in this post offensive, I remind you, you have been warned.

There has been some interesting things that people have said or done in regards to how Bro. Steve Farmer is now teaching dress standards, especially in when it concerns women wearing pants. The problem with what I've heard though is that people are employing very weak logic or none at all when making their arguments. Here are a couple of examples.

I recently heard that a lot of time and research went into finding a story in a very old book where an experiment was performed to determine whether or not it's sinful for women to wear pants. In this experiment women were paraded in front of a group of men twice, one time wearing skirts or dresses and the other time wearing pants. The viewers were then asked to identify what drew their attention each time. When the women were wearing skirts, the men said they were drawn to their beautiful faces, but when the women were wearing pants, the men said their attention was drawn to their crotches. The conclusion derived from this experiment is that women should not wear pants because doing so draws attention to their crotches and that would be a sin. This experiment was used as an argument to establish that Bro. Farmer was out of order based on how he is teaching standards.

When I heard that this story was actually used to make an argument it actually made me laugh out loud. I ask myself how this experiment could possibly apply in today's world unless we were to live a completely cloistered life. Just about everywhere I go, with the exception of church, I see women wearing pants all the time. I understand that in the past when women wearing pants was not mainstream there could have been a considerable shock factor influencing these men in this experiment, however I question whether or not these same men today would still be drawn to women's crotches whenever they see a woman wearing pants. Additionally, to use this story against the Nashville assembly seems to imply that the only women that anyone in our group would ever encounter wearing pants would be those under the direct influence of Steve Farmer and just how silly is that?

To insinuate that the women in this experiment are guilty of some sin and not the men is ludicrous. It is however a very common male psychological pattern to blame women for their faults. How is this different from the man who is physically abusive to his wife and blames his abuse on her or another man who blames the women in his life for the poor choices that he's made and is incapable of manning up and taking the responsibility for his own actions? What is happening in each of these cases is that the man is seeking justification for his actions by blaming someone else; he's not really being a man. Is there really any difference in these examples and the experiment referenced above? If there is, please point it out because I fail to see it.

I've also heard recently that there are some ministers who have been alluding without quite saying it in so many words that women who wear pants are lesbians, cross-dressers or transvestites. I won't say who because I have not actually heard this directly from them yet myself, but still I've heard this too often from too many sources for me to ignore it completely (Matt 18:16). The logic behind this statement is that if a woman dresses in a "man's garment" that could only signify that that woman is trying to take over the role of a man, and that a sexual attraction to other women must be the reason behind it. If I try really really hard I can see the progression of this logic, but it certainly overlooks a lot of simple truths.

First of all, stating that pants are exclusively a male garment is just no longer true. The average woman today wears pants much more than they do skirts, and pants have become every bit as much a female garment as they are a male garment. Just look at the women's department in any clothing store and you will see that this is true. While it is true that in the past trousers were designed as an article of clothing for men, ever since the 70's pants have become a normal article of clothing for women. Decades earlier some women did wear men's pants when they had to do a job where a skirt just would not be appropriate and because there just weren't women's pants available, but over the past forty or more years, women's pants have been made differently from men's pants and there is a clear distinction between the two. A man trying to wear pants made for a woman would not look right and vice versa.

If someone really believes that women who wear pants are lesbians, cross-dressers or transvestites, then that logic would also imply that person also believes that the vast majority of American women today are lesbians, cross-dressers or transvestites. Following this logic, you could derive that Scottish men who wear a kilt are gay, cross-dressers or transvestites as well because kilts are merely a different name for a skirt, which of course is a female garment. I even know of a couple who when they were first married used to share sweaters on occasion. Would that make them bisexual?

What is happening here is someone is judging women based on their own view of what society should be and not taking anything else into account. To illustrate what I'm saying here, some of the leading brethren have stated that they wouldn't impose Western dress ideals on people in a foreign field when those ideals clashed with local culture as long as the clothing that was worn remained modest. Hence it would not be a sin for women to wear pants in Asia because it is culturally acceptable there, though it would still remain a sin for women in North America to wear them. Other leading brethren disagree with this completely and see the dress standard as a teaching that should be universal. What neither group seems to be willing to accept is that what is and is not culturally acceptable is based on society and society here in North America has been changing. What we are told instead is that we should just discount our own society because the world is sinful. We seem to have forgotten that many of the "dress standards" in our group are merely derivatives of 1950's Mid-Western American social norms or in other words what was considered modest half a century ago and not derived directly from the Bible. If this were not so, we would all be wearing the same clothing worn by our first century brothers and sisters, tunics (undergarments) and mantles (essentially robes). How it really seems to me is that there are some of the leading brethren who think they are able to dictate culture and others who think something is sinful or not based on where you are. Both viewpoints are flaky in my mind.

Making a blanket statement that alludes that every woman wearing pants must be a lesbian, cross-dresser or a transvestite stretches the truth way past it's breaking point. Wouldn't this train of logic also imply that all women wearing skirts are straight? What about men? What article of clothing determines their sexual orientation? To me it would just seem simpler to let clothing be a matter of fashion, staying warm or just not being naked and let sexuality be a matter of sex (Gen 3:7).

The kernel of truth here is that women shouldn't try to be men and that men shouldn't try to be women and that includes how they dress. This is what's really at the heart of the scripture Deut. 22:5. Let me just say this too, if you see no difference at all between a real female transvestite who is trying to impersonate a man and a woman who is wearing a pair of slacks, I don't trust your judgment.

I also want to address the way that the Nashville church is being disfellowshipped because it has me greatly disturbed. Although I don't believe this to be the case, for the sake of argument let's assume that Bro. Farmer is completely wrong in how he is teaching modesty in his church. Given that, is disfellowshipping the church really a Biblically based, Christian way to handle the problem?

I'm reminded of the story of the shepherd who lost a sheep (Luke 15:4-7) and the story of the woman who lost a coin (Luke 15:8-10). In these stories the protagonist goes after what was lost. The shepherd didn't say, "Well, I've still got ninety-nine sheep, too bad about that other one. I'll just cut my losses and move on". The woman didn't say, "Well, I still have nine coins and I didn't really need that other one anyway, oh well". No, instead both of these people valued these things and diligently went after them. Right after these stories Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), but nowhere in the story did the father kick the younger son out of his house, or did my translation miss something? One of the restrictions that is being imposed by the "leading brethren" means that if a pastor from another assembly was genuinely concerned about Bro. Farmer and the Nashville assembly and wanted to visit them and attempt to influence them to change with the same spirit evidenced in these stories, they can't without clearing it with the "leading brethren" first. Discarding the Nashville assembly this way shows not only a lack of value and love placed on that church and the people in it, in my opinion it creates a precedent of how to handle other churches that don't quite fall in line with what the "leading brethren" lay down. I wonder who will be next.

On a side note, I find it more than just slightly ironic that Jesus told these stories in response to the Scribes and Pharisees murmuring about Him receiving and fellowshipping publicans and sinners, and another of the accusations being leveled at Bro. Farmer is that he refuses to be exclusive enough in whom he chooses to fellowship (Mark 2:16).

Now I know that I Cor. 5:1-6 was being used when making the decision to disfellowship Nashville but I question the use of this scripture though because it refers to the sexual immorality of an individual and the issues that were stated as the reasons for "withdrawing" concern the doctrinal stance of an entire assembly. This just does not apply to the situation that is at hand and to say that it does implies that you are saying that preaching modesty is sexually immoral. More importantly if we use this scripture in regards to doctrinal differences, then we also imply that the assemblies in our group share a doctrinal cohesiveness that just doesn't exist. How else could a doctrinal issue separate a church from the fellowship unless there exists a doctrinal unity which that separated church violated?

I also want to talk about something that shouldn't need to be voiced but obviously does. I've heard from some of my friends in the Nashville church that there are many people with whom they've been friends for a long time who now all of a sudden won't even speak to them anymore. Does anyone out there really believe that these people whom we have known for years just changed overnight some time back in 2009 or perhaps January of this year and are no longer the same people that they were the entire time we've known them? To those who have drank the kool-aid and decided that the Nashville church and everyone in it have become some kind of pariah, I suggest that you read 1 Cor. 13:4-8 very carefully and pray long and hard about it.

The truth about what is going on with Nashville and the people there is that there is a campaign being promoted that diminishes the value of who they are. Every time we say or think "they aren't like us any more", what we are doing is dehumanizing them. What we are saying and what you are saying if you are buying into the party line is that we are better than they are. There's just way too much of this "better than them" mentality in our group and it needs to stop. If we were to just sit down and take a look at the people who are being effected right now, we'd see just how alike we are, not how different. I hear the cry of people who have been slandered ringing in my heart and I ask myself why it is we do this (Rom 3:7-9). Who are we anyway to set ourselves up as the standard against whom everyone should be judged anyway? Who among us qualifies (Rom 3:10)? Who among us has the right (John 8:7)?

Now I know that this post and my last one are going to rock the boat, but on occasion the boat needs to be rocked. And even if no one else will stand up and speak the truth, that will not deter me. An injustice has been done, and as Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I for one will not just sit and do nothing.

Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say.

2010-02-16T12:34:00.012-05:00

I have been rather disturbed by something that has been creeping up more and more in our group over the last few years. For some reason, semantics are playing a more prevalent role and intention has been relegated to the back seat. Personally I make it a habit not to judge the intentions of others, but when what you say and what you do aren't lining up it's no longer a matter of judgment, it becomes a simple matter of observation.

I find it most harrowing that a decision can hang on the definition of one word, or rather how we choose to define that word at the moment. When being "politically correct" becomes so important it signifies that somebody is playing politics. Furthermore it seems to me at least that these people are employing misdirection, and making misleading statements in order to accomplish their goals. Personally I prefer honesty to political correctness every time.

An example of what I'm talking about happened at the Brownsville ministers meeting when the decision was made to disfellowship the Nashville church. Instead of simply saying that this is what was happening though, an attempt to soften the blow was made by calling it something else, withdrawing. Let's take a closer look at this and examine what is really happening so that we can know the truth of it. If we were going to disfellowship a church, we would stop visiting their church and attending their meetings, and we would not recognize their leadership. However keep in mind that we are not disfellowshipping this church, instead we are withdrawing, where we will stop visiting their church and attending their meetings and will not recognize their leadership. Don't let yourself be fooled, this is the exact same thing and to say that it isn't is a lie. To believe that these two things aren't the same must either mean that you are being dishonest with yourself or that you are very naive.

Even if disfellowshipping and withdrawing were two completely distinct defined procedures, if you can't see an appreciable difference in the results then they are still the same, though this is not the case here. There's a old bit of horse sense that goes something like "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck". I ask myself why we are trying to convince ourselves that if we just say it enough or with enough conviction that that thing that's waddling down the road quacking will miraculously become something other than a duck (John 3:19). Stand up and have the guts to actually call a duck a duck, and if you are going to disfellowship a church have the fortitude of character to not be deceptive and misleading about it and actually say that what you are doing is disfellowshiping that church. If it looks like disfellowship, and sounds like disfellowship, it's disfellowship.

The one criticism that I've received over and over regarding how I handle myself in this blog is that I shouldn't name names or hold people accountable for what they say or do, especially when those people are in leadership roles, and instead should be more oblique about how I say what I say. I've been told this with the best of intentions, but in essence I am being asked to candy coat what I say, even if that means having to stretch the truth from time to time. That this desire to be deceived comes from my fellow laborers saddens me greatly. If I were to say that an unnamed brother in certain northern church which just happens to reside a mitten-shaped state may or may not have made a statement that resembles something that comes close to the truth, would that sound better than if I said that my name is Dan Dillon, and I will say what I believe is true 100% of the time and if I'm wrong, I'll be man enough to admit it and take my lumps? Is it right that I am criticized for writing the truth in a plain and simple fashion while I've yet to hear much criticism at all of those who would mislead with the words that they use?

Don't be fooled, what I'm talking about here is deception, nothing more, nothing less. When someone says that they won't do something but then does it anyway and calls it something else to hide the facts, we have a term for that: operating under false pretenses. Quit playing word games and instead speak the truth! The truth will set us free (John 8:32), but misdirection is only good if you are trying to hide something. Do you think that perhaps those who are playing these word games are secretly aware that they are handling the issues that the ministry has with Bro. Farmer in a non-Christian and unbiblical manner and are feeling guilty about it so they are hiding behind pretense? I don't know about you, but that explanation certainly seems plausible to me.

If there seems to you to be a little more passion in this post than normal, you are absolutely right. Dishonesty isn't just a pet peeve with me, I despise it and to knowingly accept dishonesty from our leadership sickens me. You see, there comes a time when you have to make a choice between doing what is acceptable and what is right. The problem is that what is right isn't always acceptable and what is acceptable isn't always right. I speak for no one other than myself in the next statement, but if I am criticized, maligned, condemned and shunned because what I say isn't acceptable and yet what I'm saying is still right, then so be it, I'll bear that onus. So I ask you, does this deception represent the leadership that we really want? Are we so happy with the comfort that deception provides that we prefer it to the truth, no matter how harsh? The only answer I can give is I hope not.

As I reread through this post I realized that the heat of my words needs to be tempered with a splash of cool water, so to close I want to remind you of one of the most blessed scriptures Paul ever wrote. "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom 8:38-39). Even though I am disheartened by the turmoil that seems more and more prevalent in our fellowship, I am persuaded that it could never be able to separate us from the love of God.

Site Update

2010-02-11T12:34:00.005-05:00

Hello everyone out there who may think I've fallen off the planet. I thought it may not be a bad idea to put together an update just to let you know why the writing has been so sparse the last couple months and to let you know what's happening in the future.

First of all, I just want to give you an idea of what I've been doing. In 2009, I wrote just under 30,000 words that you can see on this blog and about another 10,000 that you can't (because I'm not finished with those articles yet). This is not the only writing that I do either. Last year I also wrote another 100,000 words in various projects and if I count that right, that's right around 140,000 words, which is about the size of two medium-sized novels. Needless to say, I got just a bit burnt out with writing.

I was going to take a two week break from writing over the holidays, but I decided to extended it to about a two month break because I just couldn't get back into the swing of things. However, I'm definitely getting back into the groove now and I foresee some more articles coming in the future.

I need to be realistic though. I was originally trying to complete 4 articles a week for this blog, 3 for another, and between two other blogs 1 a week. That as well as writing everything else I write is just too much for me, so I'm going to cut back a little bit and try to pace myself.

I'm going to commit to trying to write one article a week for this blog. I normally like posting on Tuesday, but instead of committing to a specific deadline, what I will say is that most likely there will be at least one new article here per week and that will most likely be on Tuesday. I expect that I will write more than that on occasion as well, so I'm leaving myself room to write up to 4 articles a week, on Sun, Tues, Wed and Thurs.

I've had a lot of positive response from what I write, so I don't want to neglect this blog any longer. I hope to write more this year over all than I did last year, and if I get the time, I'll keep bumping up the amount of work I do. Remember, I don't just write, I also go over what I've written several times editing and polishing, trying to produce a good product, so there's a considerable amount of time and energy that I commit to writing, so when I feel the need, I will take a break once in a while. Still for the foreseeable future, I think my writing is going to be back to normal, whatever that is.

Be Merciful

2010-02-09T12:34:00.004-05:00

There is a wonderful scripture that implores us not to judge and condemn people and instead tells us to forgive (Luke 6:37). One scripture earlier reminds us to be merciful (Luke 6:36). Don't judge, instead be merciful. Don't condemn, instead forgive; This seems so minor and simple, but this may be one of the most difficult teachings to put into practice.

I could list examples of having a judgmental and condemning spirit that I've seen in my own church or in the larger body, but there's really no reason to. We all know what I'm talking about. Instead, to bring added emphasis, I will quote the revised judgmental version of John 3:16. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life, unless (fill in the blank)."

I am going to ask you to be honest with yourselves. Have you been sticking disclaimers on salvation? Have you been qualifying Christianity? Salvation isn't about being perfect, it's about being forgiven. So why is it so prevalent to question a person's salvation or Christianity when they do something wrong? Paul himself stated that the good he meant to do he didn't, and the evil that he didn't want to do he did (Rom 7:19). Should we not also condemn Paul along with our brothers and sisters that also do evil?

John has something to say about condemnation. The Scribes and Pharisees brought a woman before Jesus who was caught in the act of adultery (John 8:3-4). They tried to force Jesus to judge her but instead He told them that if any of them were "without sin", they could condemn her to death (John 8:5,7). They were convicted by this and left, and Jesus asked the woman, won't anyone condemn you (John 8:9-10)? When she told Him that there was no one left to condemn her, He forgave her and told her that He did not condemn her either and admonished her to go and sin no more (John 8:11).

This is such a wonderful picture of what mercy and forgiveness are. Did this woman commit adultery? Yes. Did Jesus know it? Of course He did. The Bible says that if a person commits adultery, they should be put to death (Lev 20:10). Didn't Jesus know this? Most certainly. So here's the question I have for you: Why did Jesus just let this woman off the hook when the law said she should have died for what she did?

Christ gave himself to be the propitiation for our sins and not just mine or for yours, but for the whole world's (1 John 2:2). Jesus bought the right to be merciful to this woman with every drop of blood that He shed on the cross and with every moment of agony he endured, and to not be merciful ourselves brings dishonor and disgrace on the sacrifice that He made. And remember, He died for your sins just like he died for mine, so why does it seem right to deny the mercy that Christ bought to someone else? Why is it that it is so difficult to let mercy and forgiveness reign in our hearts when it comes to others?

It's easy to judge and condemn, but it takes something more to forgive and show mercy. So the next time you start judging the faults that you see in others, ask yourself this question. Wasn't Christ's death enough to forgive that person of their sins? Because if it wasn't my friend, how could it be enough to cover us in forgiveness?

To close, I want to put up a song that has been circling by mind as I write this.

Redeemed, how I love to proclaim it!
Redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.
Redeemed through His infinite mercy,
His child and forever I am.

My brothers and sisters, are we all not redeemed, bought with a price? Are we all not covered by that same blood? Are we all not forgiven, our sins banished forever to the sea of forgetfulness? Are we all not His children, born again into a new family? Have we not all been shown His same infinite mercy? How then can we fathom to repay the good that we've been shown with anything but the same? Be merciful, even as God is merciful.

He's in Control

2010-01-15T12:34:00.001-05:00

Some people look at life and believe without a doubt that they are in control. Others fret that there is nothing in control of what is happening. However, great assurance can be derived from having faith. There will always be those who try to impose their own control on life, and yet every time these people will be humbled when situations get out of their control. There will also always be those who buck against control of their lives, creating friction in their own lives and the lives of others. As Christians though, we have a simple choice of belief. Either we believe that God is in control or we don't.

When circumstances in life are more than you can bear and everywhere you turn you feel overwhelmed and are most vulnerable, remember that God is in control of your life and He always will be.

1941 School Of The Prophets KC, MO

2010-01-09T04:33:00.002-05:00

Some Things Never Change

2009-12-22T12:34:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

Reva Mears Bio

2009-12-21T12:34:00.000-05:00

Reva Mears Bio

Newborn, 1898 in christening gown

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

Reva as teen working coal mines

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

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

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

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

Reva & Elva 1923

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

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

Reva baptizing in the river.

Reva with Cornelius 1923

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas,

Paul Farmer

I'll Keep Holding On To Jesus

2009-12-17T12:34:00.005-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is there for you, always.

Fear

2009-12-16T12:34:00.006-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fear not.

It's Good to be Weak

2009-12-10T12:34:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governing the Body

2009-12-08T12:34:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-11-20T12:34:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

God bless,

Paul Farmer

Update

2009-11-17T12:34:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

When I Lift My Hands

2009-11-15T12:34:00.004-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sheep and the Goats

2009-11-12T12:34:00.016-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

The Four-Fold Ministry, Sorta

2009-11-11T12:34:00.004-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings in Disguise

2009-11-10T12:34:00.004-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overspoken, Underinformed

2009-11-08T12:34:00.006-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Order, Organized, Organization

2009-11-05T12:34:00.006-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About this blog

2009-11-04T12:34:00.009-05:00

This post is more just catching up with my readers, so if this is not your thing, please bear with me.

First of all, I thought some of my readers might be interested to know that I installed Google Analytics on this blog. I was interested in seeing just how many people were actually reading this blog, and since I've installed it, I'm averaging around 100 page views a day and all the stats are on the increase as I write this. People in 25 states have read this blog with Tennessee, Florida and Michigan rounding out the top 3 spots. I don't know if anyone else thinks that this is interesting, but I do.

Second, I've invited several guest authors to write on my blog and so far one of them has agreed. I've asked three other people to write as well, and though I haven't got firm commitments yet, there does seem to be interest. I'm hoping to have some content that is not self-generated on this blog soon. So you might notice that there is a contributors section on the blog now, and this is why. So far I've asked people to write on specific subjects that I think they are more qualified to write on than I am or who might have a unique perspective on.

Third, I just wanted to thank all of you who have shown your support to me by your encouraging words or emails. I will endeavor to continue searching out hidden truths.

Next, I wanted to say please feel free to comment on my posts. If you want to say you like what I'm writing or that you think I'm wrong, that's fine. I am always interested in people's opinion and learning from other people. If I am wrong about something, I want to know, but please point out how you think I'm wrong, don't just say, "You're wrong". To those of you who have already commented on some of my posts, thanks. If I don't reply, it's only because I don't think I need to. If you want me to, please point it out and I'd be happy to.

By the way, anyone can use scripture references just like I do in my posts and they will pop up in your response too. Just be sure to use the most common abbreviation of the book that you know, for instance Hbr 12:1 shouldn't pop up, but Heb 12:1 should. If you are in doubt, just write the whole name of the book and you'll be fine. Incidentally, I can't actually check the references in my posts until the post is live on the blog, so I might occasionally edit the references after the fact so that they work correctly. So if you see a scripture reference that isn't working correctly, I'll get to it shortly.

Also, I only edit my posts after they are live for grammar and punctuation, not for content. On the very rare occasion (I've done this once so far) I might add a clarifying statement to a post if I think it is necessary because I didn't explain myself completely clearly. What I won't do though is delete a post or part of a post. I don't feel the need to do this, and I will stand by what I say and take my lumps if I'm wrong.

Hiding your Talents

2009-11-03T12:34:00.014-05:00

We've all heard or read the parable recorded in Matt 25:14-30. There's just something that I've been thinking about, and it throws a little light on this parable.

I've wrote this before, but in a mythology class I took in college, the professor made a good point, and it's never left me. In any ancient literature, what isn't documented is information that everyone knew and took for granted. Sometimes this information can be useful when trying to reconcile an understanding of an ancient account without adding modern preconceptions. This story lacks just such information.

When I first heard this story about a man who buried the money that his master entrusted to him, I thought that it was silly. People today just wouldn't take a large sum of money out to the backyard and bury it behind the garage, it's just doesn't make sense in the 21st century. However, in the 1st century, it wasn't so abnormal.

Two thousand years ago, it was extremely common to bury money for safekeeping. If you'd like proof of this, go to eBay and see the coins that people with metal detectors have unearthed and are for sale. There are literally tons of coins that have remained buried for nearly two thousand years that sell every year, some of which are still covered in dirt. I have four that are sitting on my nightstand at home. Of course some of the coins had fallen and were just never picked up, but many more were intentionally buried for safekeeping.

My Nelson's Study Bible says in the commentary for Matt 25:18 that burying money was considered the most secure way of keeping money. The risks were very low that you'd lose that money. In fact, the only risks you took was that someone else knew where you buried your money and would take it, or you'd forget where you buried it. Roman soldiers would often bury their money before going on their campaigns in an effort to keep it safe for when they returned. Many hordes of coins that have been found are suspected to have belonged to these soldiers, many of whom never made it back.

Matt 13:44 tell of a man who discovered a treasure buried in a field, who sold everything that he had in order to buy the field. We can assume that this treasure would have been buried for the same reason that the third servant buried his talent, to keep it safe. Of course these stories are both parables and didn't actually happen, but two separate parables in which we find money being buried seems to indicate that the practice wasn't considered as absurd as it might seem today.

In fact, burying money was the conservative approach for hanging onto money. It is only recently that this became a less acceptable way of saving money. We hear stories of buried treasure that date back only several hundred years and even today you still hear about people who have hidden their money in mattresses, flour canisters, toilet tanks, in walls or even in coffee cans buried out in the back yard. Some of today's most secure modern banks rely on underground vaults, and that is really nothing more than burying valuables with style.

So what we see is that not only was hiding money considered the conservative approach, it was the accepted approach. It is analogous to having a savings account today. So when this servant was entrusted with an amount of money that would have paid the salary of a common laborer for twenty years, it is understandable why the servant would have been afraid to lose it and decided to hide it seeing that that was most reasonable security measure of the day to protect against loss (Matt 25:25). Bring this up to today, and the servant could just as easily have started a new bank account and put the money in there, safe and secure until he needed to return it to his master. In today's modern economy where so many investment specialists are just trying to focus on not losing all their assets, they might well have commended this servant on his conservative approach.

Matt 25:27 brings another aspect of this story to light. The master tells the lazy servant that he should have put his money out to the exchangers so that he could have earned a share of their profits. So what the master is saying is that he should have given his talent to someone like the other two servants, someone who would have made enough profit that would have justified paying interest for the use of that money.

I look at the other two servants as it seems that we overlook them while concentrating on the lazy servant. The fact remains that they each doubled their masters money. They used their money to make more money, that's called investing. Now the economy in ancient Judea isn't like our modern economy, but still some basics about investing remain. They took risks to make their profit, and for the first servant to have taken the annual salary of 100 workers and double that, he may have taken some large risks.

We aren't told what the two servants did to make their profit or how long the master was away, but regardless, we can safely infer that the two servants put themselves out and took more risks than the third servant, and that their risk taking was rewarded. We've all heard this parable explained in a way that teaches us not to be lazy but to be productive, but is it possible too that there is added meaning that we need to learn to not be conservative with the use of God's gifts to us, and instead not only to use the gifts God gives to us, but to use them liberally, and be willing to take risks? What do you think?

Oh, and by the way, I've heard the parable of the talents applied to our natural talents or rather gifts and skills. While it's a good application, it's not perfect because how can you give your talent out to someone else and collect interest on them? What this parable is about is money, not about skills. So what can we learn from a parable that says the kingdom of Heaven is like a master who leaves servants in charge, and that his servants are good stewards who can make money?

I see another application for this parable that deals with our churches. Could this parable be applied to the growth of our churches? Is it possible that we can have an expectation that our churches are supposed to grow and prosper? I'm not speaking strictly financially, but neither am I ruling this out. Also, I'm not laying all responsibility for this growth strictly on the pastor, but I'm not recusing him either, I'm referring to the local church as a whole. Still, I see a parallel between a man who hides money in the ground and a church that has had no growth in several decades.

A servant who isn't willing to go and use what his master has given him outside of his circle of influence isn't going to see any growth. A church that isn't willing to go and use what God has given them outside of their circle of influence isn't going to see any growth. A servant who is playing it safe, being conservative and just focusing on hanging on to what they have and a church that is just playing it safe, being conservative and just focusing on hanging on to what they have will both have the same result, not much. Maybe I'm way off base here with my interpretation and application here, but if a church wasn't experiencing any growth at all for an extended period of time, I can see how it could be because they as a group weren't using the gifts that God had given the church to grow, and were instead just keeping their gifts hidden, or in other words just holding onto those gifts for themselves. Additionally if a church is experiencing growth, I can see how it could be because the are using the gifts that God gave them to grow. If this is an acceptable application of this parable, it certainly puts a new spin on Matt 25:27.

You might be asking yourself what my point is by now, and it's just this. I can see a clear application in this parable directed to our churches to reach out beyond ourselves using the gifts God has given us to bring more people out of darkness and into the light. We are a light to the world, and to be honest I see this parable more as a statement to not hide our light than to not use our talents. We are children of the King, with a great treasure laid up for us (Matt 6:20-21, Col 3:2). And this is the wonder of the richness of God, it cannot be diminished by sharing what we have with others. Remember that song you learned to sing in Sunday School when you were just a child:

This little light of mine, I'm going to let it shine.
This little light of mine, I'm going to let it shine.
This little light of mine, I'm going to let it shine, let it shine let it shine, let is shine.

Hide it under a bushel? NO! I'm going to let it shine.
Hide it under a bushel? NO! I'm going to let it shine.
Hide it under a bushel? NO! I'm going to let it shine, let it shine let it shine, let is shine.

So my message to you my friend is to reach out to someone using the gifts has put into you, they are worth sharing with. Let your light shine. And don't forget, if you don't you aren't hiding money, you are hiding yourself in an attempt to hide what Christ has done for you. What you're trying to hide is Christ.

How God Doles out Grace

2009-11-01T12:34:00.003-05:00

There is a wonderful parable in Matt 20:1-16 about the wages a householder paid to his workers. I won't write the entire parable, but instead ask the question, when you consider the housekeeper, was he fair? You might sympathize with the workers who worked all day and got paid the same amount that those who only worked one hour received. You might think that they deserved more than those who started later.

Every one of us was given grace by God according to the generosity of Christ (Ehp 4:7). We also know that we can't earn grace or God's gifts. What we have earned is death, though what we've been given instead is life (Rom 6:23). We've heard that we aren't getting what we deserve so many times that we can forget just what we do deserve. God gives grace to people because they need it, not because they deserve it.

This way of thinking is not something we are taught as children. Play fair is often the mantra of parents with multiple children. When a parent doesn't share with equal measures, they potentially stir up jealousy in one or more of their children. This can lead to favoritism and cause resentment among children. But we are not children, and God does not play favorites.

When we think that we deserve God's grace, we set ourselves against the working of grace in our lives (James 4:6). God doesn't care what we think is fair, instead He supplies all our needs. Have you ever questioned why God blesses someone who isn't living right? Does God seem to bless them more than He blesses you? Is this fair?

Let's consider the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). Which brother deserved the favor of his father more? Which brother had the greater need? These questions have obvious answers, but let's take this just a little further and put yourself into the roll of one of the brothers. Do you relate more to the younger son or to the older son? What if you were to put yourself in the place of both brothers displaced by a period of time? Haven't we all had both our prodigal moments as well as times we question why God does the things that He does? Does our perception of the older son being angry with how his father treated the younger son change when we place ourselves in both positions? After years of dedicating your life to God and living a faithful life, do you resent God's mercy on you when you first repented of your sin? Of course not. Why is it then that we resent God's wonderful mercies on anyone?

Anyway, grace is not something we always completely understand. Consider this, if God seems to be blessing someone who has many problems in a great way, and you don't have nearly as many problems as them, isn't having fewer problems also God's grace working just in a different way? The way God works is not always apparent in our lives. The trials that we haven't gone through and the paths that we didn't walk can be just as valid an operation of grace as when He brings us through a trial.

In Luke 7:41-43, Jesus asks the question of what person would appreciate forgiveness more, one who was forgiven a little or one who was forgiven a lot? Jesus said that those who have been forgiven greatly will love the person who forgave them more. Is it possible that these people are more open to the moving of God than those who have been forgiven less? I'm not sure, but I know it doesn't have to be this way. You see God forgives us as individuals, not as corporate entities. We all need complete forgiveness; thankfully God doesn't ration his forgiveness or his grace. He gives us gifts freely and generously.

So maybe, just maybe, could it be that we are the cause of our own consternation? Could it be that maybe we don't accept the gifts of God as freely as they are given. Search your heart and you will know; this is what it means to have a contrite heart. Keep in mind the other half of James 4:6. God gives grace to His humble, contrite, and undeserving children. Don't take this away from yourself.

Gnosis

2009-10-29T12:34:00.002-04:00

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

The Standard

2009-10-28T12:34:00.013-04:00

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

I See That I Need to Clarify

2009-10-27T12:34:00.013-04:00

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

What Happens When We Die?

2009-10-25T12:34:00.004-04:00

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.

Being Proud vs. Being Prideful

2009-10-22T12:34:00.001-04:00

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.

The Undoctrine

2009-10-21T12:34:00.009-04:00

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.

Re: The Root of the Problem

2009-10-20T12:34:00.010-04:00

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

Overcoming

2009-10-18T12:34:00.001-04:00

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."

Ad Hominem

2009-10-15T12:34:00.000-04:00

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

The Perfect Church

2009-10-14T12:34:00.000-04:00

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.

Cosmetic Changes

2009-10-13T12:34:00.000-04:00

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.