Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts

Sunday, December 24, 2017

News Commentary Break: Lorde, The UN, And Israel

Bullspit Of Epic Proportions

Truth be told, I like some Lorde songs. I think she's got a unique voice and a very different ear for music. I also can't say that I am upset with her for canceling her show: It's her show, and what she does with her business is her business. It's no skin off my nose if she chooses to respect her Israeli fans, or respect her Palestinian fans, or disrespect most of her fans to please a portion of them. It really is none of my concern.

What is my concern; what does have me ready to unload on someone; is the level of misinformation being spread around. What does have me pissed off is the pure and unadulterated stupidity seen in the United Nations today. What does have me angry is the relative ease with which a whining, vocal few can sway public opinion. 

Case in point: Lorde. I don't know the young lady, but I'm guessing she's very busy being a singer and performer. I'm guessing that between performances, publicity appearances, release parties, studio work and interviews, she has precious little time for herself. I'm guessing that much of her quality alone time outside of the public's eye is spent doing things she enjoys- And unless she enjoys researching international politics; the history of Israel and the Palestinian people; the creation, governance and activities of Hamas and Hezbollah; and the recognition policies of the United Nations, she probably doesn't know as much as she should to make a truly informed decision. However, introduce a whining, sniveling, simpering, sob-story toting duo of millennial/hippy hybrids writing a letter full of historical inaccuracies and factually flawed reasoning, and this incredibly influential pop star makes a decision which in turn sways public opinion. 

"A Difficult Time"

I'm sure that Palestinians throughout the region were suffering terribly, wondering if she was going to come or not. I can almost guarantee that no Muslim woman would be at the concert anyway; at least, not in any visible way. You see, such Western entertainment is considered to be corrupting to a Muslim; but especially to a woman. To see Lorde on stage showing skin not normally seen in a strict Islamic society could potentially cause women to think they were empowered, valuable or worse, (gasp) even human. If given the chance, I'd like to ask Ms. Abu-Shanab why she does not attempt to teach under Hamas or Hezbollah rule. I'd also like to ask Ms. Sachs why she thinks it's possible that she could return to Israel while still heading up her Deyanu organization. 

The simple truth is that Ms. Abu-Shanab would face persecution and possible death under Hamas and Hezbollah for being a woman teaching- Whether she is Muslim or not. Meanwhile, Ms. Sachs would be allowed to continue her involvement with an organization aimed at lambasting Israel for its supposed occupation of Palestinian land while living in Israel because they maintain much the same individual freedoms as the United States. The worst Ms. Sachs might experience are some harsh words from people who don't approve; far easier to deal with than the literal stones which might be thrown at Ms. Abu-Shanab. 

The reality is that no Palestinian dwelling in regions around Israel were having a difficult time due to Lorde; nor would they have any additional difficulty if she had chosen to keep her concert. No, the reality is that the difficulties these Palestinians face come directly from their coalition government: Hamas and Hezbollah. These two groups, still listed as international terrorist organizations, are the entities throwing fits about Jerusalem's recognition as Israel's capital. To stay alive and semi-cared for, the people barely surviving under this joke of a government merely repeat the party line.

The Sins Of America

According to dimwitted and well-intentioned people alike, the move by President Trump to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital was "shortsighted," "piggish," and "the actions of a Zionist bully," to use just a few of the descriptions I've heard. These individuals seem to forget the requirements for admission into the United Nations, to say nothing of simple history.

President Trump did nothing unusual: He recognized a city as the capital of a country that has had that city as its capital since inception. Would we be claiming issues if the U.S. recognized London as the capital of the United Kingdom, Paris as the capital of France, or Ottawa as the capital of Canada would there be an issue? Of course not. Yet these three countries have the largest Jewish populations in the world apart from Israel and the United States. 

The issue is not that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The issue is that Israel even exists, and I absolutely dare anyone to try proving me wrong on that statement. The sins of America in relation to Israel are many: We did not step into World War II soon enough; we did not treat them properly under many presidential administrations since their sovereign national identity was established; and we have not done enough to help their neighbors rid themselves of Hamas and Hezbollah. With the absence of these organizations, and a genuine democratic republic in place, the Palestinian peoples would actually be capable of speaking for themselves. 

The Treason Of The United Nations

In order to be admitted to the United Nations, an application must first receive a minimum of nine out of fifteen votes from the Security Council. Then it must receive a two-thirds majority vote from the General Assembly. In 1949, the nation of Israel was accepted into the United Nations with a better than minimal vote. 

In the speeches accompanying their admission, the Jewish people were hailed for their contributions to humanity. Phrases such as "advancement of progressive thought" and "Useful member of the family of nations" were used in these final discussions and statements. El Salvadore stated that it had watched the process "with the warmest desire to promote its admission." These are just some of the glowing terms used during these final speeches. 

Naturally, there were those opposed. It should come as no surprise that these were almost exclusively Arab, and almost entirely Muslim. It should come as no surprise that the anti-Israel initiative began even as they were admitted to the United Nations. Iraq called Israel's admission "another nail in the coffin of the United Nations." Egypt implied that admitting Israel would bring "everlasting shame and humiliation" to the United Nations. Syria accused the United Nations, stating they had "rewarded violence with praise." Nevertheless, Israel was admitted.

Ironically, the United Nations is now doing exactly that: Rewarding violence with praise and condoning terrorism with a smirk and a shadowy hand-off. The Arab states surrounding the nation of Israel have, from 1949, continually attempted to wipe Israel from the map. This is incontrovertible fact, and it cannot be excused. 

So this brings us to the latest treason against Israel perpetrated by the United Nations; this in addition to them funneling money to Hamas and Hezbollah in spite of the fact that they are recognized terrorist organizations; this in addition to supplying the coalition government formed by these two organizations with finances to bring legal action against Israel- This in spite of said coalition government not being a member state. 

This is the latest:

Saturday, December 23, 2017

A Notable Event

A classic Christmas scene - But how accurate is this?

Tradition Reigns

We know the scene: Mary and Joseph staring down at a serenely sleeping baby Jesus, surrounded by animals, shepherds, angels and three kings - And all in a stable, because some innkeeper was a jerk. Joseph has a staff, of course, because he's like Gandalf facing the balrog better known as Herod: "You shall not pass!" Jesus lay sleeping soundly, because being God, he would never fuss. Mary is radiant, of course, showing no signs of just having given birth. All the animals would naturally be facing their Creator, and the three kings would stand pondering the newborn wisely.

This is that classic creche scene, isn't it? Even many churches that put on Christmas pageants have all these characters together. Since that's the tradition, why question? If that's how our churches portray it occurring, why doubt? Even many of our favorite Christmas carols reinforce these concepts, for Kringle's sake!

The problem is that very few of these classic scenes are confirmed in Scripture. What's more, the Bible in its entirety actually puts a bit of an unexpected spin on quite a few dearly held assumptions. In these next few articles leading up to Christmas, I'd like to share some of these spins with you all. Nothing contradicts or invalidates the Word of God - But much of what we thought we knew about the Christmas story is about to get shaken up.

Setting The Scene Correctly
Here is a more realistic setting for the Nativity scene.

One of the first things that ought to be understood is that we've been assigning blame to some poor schmuck who likely never existed. There are only two accounts of Jesus' birth in the Bible, and neither mention an innkeeper. Yet for who knows how long, we've been blaming some random proprietor of some ancient hotel, motel or Holly Day Inn for Christ being born in a stable.

As a matter of fact, the original language in Matthew suggests that there wasn't an "Inn" at all. The word in Greek is kataluma, and suggests a set place of rest for travelers. Interestingly, there have been archaeological finds showing such public shelters, often built above a cave. There was no topos, or space, for them in the kataluma, or shelter. Because of this, Joseph took his pregnant wife to the closest protection he could think of: The cave beneath the traveler's shelter which housed the livestock.

Another aspect of this scene? An exhausted Mary. You see, while she had been promised the honor of carrying the Son of God, she had not been promised a painless pregnancy or an easy birth. The classic vision of her kneeling beside her newborn son is likely less than accurate. If she was cradling her son as she lay on her side, or slightly reclined, this would be more realistic.

That being said, it is possible that Mary was simply able to give birth and bounce back almost immediately. It was also extremely unlikely. The swaddling cloths that Jesus was wrapped in were quite possibly meant for Mary in the case of her death. According to historical record, the mortality rate of birthing mothers was high; and Jews could not come into physical contact with the dead. Thus, strips of cloth were carried to enable the safe movement of a body. In this case, Christ was wrapped in such cloths at the beginning and end of his earthly life.

The Baby Jesus

One of the biggest issues I have found with the traditional scene is actually that of the baby Jesus. In carols, in Nativity scenes, and even in some sermons, this newborn child is depicted as being some serene sleeper. A no tears infant of incredible understanding and comprehension. There's just one problem with this: That's not the picture given us by Scripture.

In Matthew 1:25, we're only told that Mary gave birth to Jesus before Joseph consummated their marriage. In Luke 2:7. we're given a little more detail: She gave birth to a Son, wrapped him is swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger. In verse 16 of the same chapter, we're told that the shepherds came to find Mary, Joseph and the baby laying in the manger.

Notice that nowhere does it tell us about the behavior of the infant Jesus. However, we are told that "He learned obedience through the things He suffered." (Hebrews 5:8) We see that he behaved just like any other headstrong 12 year old, deciding what he thought to do was more important than following his parents home from the Temple. (Luke 2:41-52) Thus, he was as much human as God. This suggests to me that Jesus probably cried in the manger; that Mary and Joseph probably changed their equivalent of diapers; that they had their share of sleepless nights as a family; and that the boy Jesus probably had to practice measuring and cutting in Joseph's shop before he got it right.

Bottom Line

There's nothing heretical or apostate in looking at likely realities where the Bible and Scripture do not inform, so long as these do not contradict the Word of God. Pointing out, for instance, the fact that Jesus was probably just like every other newborn is not a violation of Scripture- Perhaps traditions, but when tradition and Scripture collide, tradition must bow to the Bible.

Pointing out the historical unlikelihood of them trying to stay at an inn may seem to contradict Scripture at first. However, when the original Koine Greek is examined, it's easy to see how the two words topos and katalumas have been misinterpreted in our modern day. Even King James Only advocates have little to complain about when it comes to this, as in the early 1600's, such shelters were still present here and there throughout Europe and Middle Eastern countries. It is simply the definition of words, and thus our understanding of those words, which has changed.

Stay tuned for the next examination.

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Beyond The Bend

Have you ever gone for a walk on an unfamiliar road? Have you ever encountered a sharp turn in that road that you couldn't see past? Ever stared at that ninety degree angle and found yourself wanting to just turn around?

There are times we don't want to take that turn. Maybe we're just out for a simple walk. Maybe we're driving through a strange neighborhood. Maybe we're on that road call Life and this turn has suddenly appeared before us. We all have moments where we hesitate. Why?

These turns are frightening. These turns are scary. We can't see around them so we don't know what's waiting for us. That makes us think of all the "what ifs" that could be waiting for us. Those possibilities grow and get stacked up until we can't see anything else.

The "what ifs" are what cause fear. They are fair-weather friends in the best of times. Most often they are our enemies. They wait for an opportunity to stab us in the back. An opportunity like a blind turn in front of us. There they attack. There they bring fear.

Fear has been defined as False Evidence Appearing Real. That's what the "what ifs" really are. We don't know that those terrible "what ifs" aren't there. At the same time we don't know that they are. False Evidence. Fake news. Nothing but day dreams gone bad.

This is one reason the Apostle Paul said to "take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Cor. 10:5) Christ is God. (Jn. 10:30-33) God is Love. (1 Jn. 4:8) Perfect Love drives out fear. (1 Jn. 4:18)

There is nothing to fear when we have perfect love. Humans really don't have perfect love. We are able to have perfect love when we have Jesus Christ. When we have Him in our lives we need to make every thought obey Him. When every thought obeys Him there can be no fear.


I'm sharing this because I'm practicing. I'm still working at this. I'm not a master yet. I have noticed that it works. When I remember to make my thoughts obey Christ, the fears disappear. So do the "what-ifs." When the "what-ifs" are gone, I am able to make it beyond the bend.

So can you.


[This is the second installment in a new series. The first is HERE.]

Sunday, December 17, 2017

The Edge Of Loss

I sit here typing away on a laptop, currently warm and sheltered from the cold outside. It may seem that all is well, but reality is a... Uh... Well, let's say that reality is not nice. Reality is a harsh wind in the face of a soft hope.

I could say a great deal about reality right now. I could rant and rail, which would be fitting for this blog I guess. I could complain, but who'd actually read the whole article at that point? No. Though I have one hundred and one things to say about reality, I'll stay quiet.

The truth is that reality has two edges. With one edge it cuts us deeply. With the other, it clears a path for us to walk. God's Word is indeed a lamp unto our feet, but I have noticed that God uses reality to make sure we're awake.






Wasteland Of Desperation


night in the desert
Courtesy of Freely Photos - Credit: Mohammad Alizade
As I sit here typing, I have a few tabs open in my browser. One is a job search. Yes, I have been placing applications. I average about five a day. I also call the companies where I've applied if I don't hear from them within seven days.

The rule I live by when seeking work is simple: "My future in God's hands, my resume in everyone else's." This is a great rule. It has worked well in the past. It is not working right now. In fact, I haven't worked steadily in over two years. That means that the rule hasn't worked for me in over two years.

I have worked some odd jobs here and there. Most have amounted to day labor. Due to God being good, my family has never wanted for a roof, food, warmth or transportation. Until now. Until this moment. This night when I stare total loss in the face and wonder what comes next.


Death Of The Faithful

My wife and I have had a faithful car for as long as we have been married, some four years now. It was her car before I married her. It has been a good car to us and our baby.

Last night, I lost reverse. Then I began losing speed. Our car sits outside tonight on life support. She is able to start. She is able to run. She is unable to keep going for much longer though. She is certainly unsafe for the daughter that so loves car rides. She is too wounded to be trusted with my wife.

Tomorrow, I will likely take her on one final drive. We will ride slowly with her hazard lights blinking away. I may or may not be crying. I know how silly that sounds.
Courtesy Free Images - Credit: Brian Tan

I will think of all the fond memories we have made with her. The night my wife and I made our way to the hospital. The day we returned with our daughter. The long road trip to New England to visit my family. Visits, long talks, earnest prayers, rehearsed lines for opening night... All within this faithful car.

Our destination will be the local Junk Car Medics. They will put money in my hands, and I will walk away. She will have made one final sacrifice for her family. I will feel like Judas.


Sour Hopes And Sick Hearts

My family lives in a studio apartment now. Two adults and one infant in an apartment the size of a modest motel room. We wait for red tape to be cleared elsewhere. At some point, my phone will ring. A friendly voice on the other end will tell me that my family and I can finally move. That we are finally fully funded.

Yet we have waited and waited. The phone does not ring. Our savings account drains and still the phone does not ring. I write articles to sell. I write more than I sell. Still the phone does not ring.

I forgot, I'm afraid. I forgot what it felt like to have hopes and dreams go sour. I forgot what it's like to have my heart become uncomfortable. Then spiral from discomfort to discouraged. From discouraged to agonized. From agonized, to sick.

Hopes held too closely ferment. When they are not kept properly, they grow old. They begin to wrinkle, peel and stink. At the height of their souring, they begin leaking. The toxin of the once promising hope begins to poison the heart. Naturally the heart grows ill.






Bait And Switch

Yesterday I was finally able to get a job. Sort of. It's on a day to day basis. Weather tends to affect the schedule. Temperature is an issue also. If things get too cold there can be no work. Yet income is income. I cannot afford to be proud.

I spoke with my future employer yesterday afternoon. I was on a hands-free device while driving. I was able to tell him that I had transportation. Then last night she began to die. Now we have to sell her for scrap.

Will I still have a job? I was supposed to start on Tuesday. I don't know what the day after tomorrow will bring. I hope to be working. I just have to get there.


The Meeting Place

Many paths meet on a dark desert night. That night is now. Will I be working on Tuesday? Will they buy our car tomorrow? Will disaster be avoided for another week? Or will rent go unpaid? Will we be sent over the edge of loss? 

I simply don't know. I know we are here in spite of all I've done. I know we still cling to hope. I know that dreams never really die. They mutate perhaps. Sometimes they become zombies and return to bite us. They never really die.

The biggest thing I have to remember is that more than problems meet here. This is the hard place where God's power crashes into the rock of troubles. When all is said and done, I know we'll be all right. I'm just convinced.

We'll be together in the meeting place. No more rock. No more hard place. No more blind curve in the road of life. We'll be beyond this trouble. There will be others to be sure. Each time, I know that we'll be there again. 

At the meeting place on the edge of loss.






[The second installment in what is becoming a series can be found HERE.]

Thursday, October 13, 2016

The Blood of Christ

There was an article going around social media about six years ago that detailed the seven places Christ bled, and just recently this was used as the basis for an excellent message in my church. It got me thinking about the sacrifice that Christ made, certainly. It also got me thinking about how many unbelievers refuse to accept the account; some going so far as to dispute the very existence of Jesus Christ.

Sadly, it also inspired thoughts of how many Christians simply do not take the time to consider the magnitude of His suffering and death, choosing instead to focus solely upon His resurrection. I understand that some may find the suffering of our Savior to be an unpleasant topic to discuss, much less meditate upon; a great many of us would prefer to forget our own suffering, let alone dwell upon that of another! However, it is vital for believers today to not only recognize how and where Christ bled, suffered and died; but also to understand the full scope and magnitude of why.

Start with the basics of His suffering and the tools of His execution, but do so with the understanding that the Jewish people are as guilty of killing Him as you and I; more importantly, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that it was certain Jewish leaders who sought His death, and not the nation as a whole. Finally, His execution was carried out by the Romans, thus certain tall tales about His suffering and crucifixion must be necessarily laid aside.

A Quick Note: There are those who claim that Christ was only given 39 lashes; indeed, the article referenced in the beginning of this article utilizes this thought. However, this is more a traditional teaching beginning within the Roman Catholic Church, and is not supported by history, nor by Scripture. It should be noted that the Jewish leaders handed Christ over to the Romans for the singular reason that they could not execute Him themselves, and as such abandoned Him to Roman executory custom.

The Suffering of Christ

Jesus' suffering initially began within the Garden of Gethsemane, where He was under such immense emotional and mental strain that the capillaries beneath His skin ruptured into His pores, causing His blood to mix with His sweat. This extreme response to intense stress is still seen today, and is known as Hematidrosis. There are variations of the name for this phenomena, but they are documented and very real.

His indirect suffering, defined as suffering incurred at the hands of others without violent contact, began after His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane. Throughout the course of the night, Jesus was forcefully marched more than two and a half miles from trial location to trial location. This was done without sleep and very little nourishment, so far as we are aware.

The direct suffering He endured at the hands of others via violent means began after His first hearing. This took place before the political Sanhedrin, where He was found guilty of blasphemy. After the finding, He was blindfolded and punched about the face by the temple guard. His second trial was before the religious Sanhedrin, and though He was not subjected to violence, He was forced to march.

After His trial before Pilate, Jesus was subjected to scourging. This was usually carried out by two soldiers, called lictors, using short whips of braided leather, with bone fragments and small iron balls incorporated into the weapon. The area that was flogged was the back, buttocks and legs of the condemned; the recipient of the punishment was usually chained to a post by his wrists, causing him to hang painfully when the strength was beaten from him. The purpose of this flogging was to bring the subject to the point of collapse or death, without causing either. The end result of this beating were multiple, quivering ribbons of flesh and torn muscular tissue bleeding profusely. This was no less true in the case of Christ, and we do know from studying the Greek that this particular scourging was harsh even by Roman standards. Some have suggested that the whips were slightly longer, allowing the lashes to reach around to the front of Christ, possibly even causing damage to the face, torso and genitals.

A Quick Note: There are those who claim that Christ was only given 39 lashes; indeed, the article referenced in the beginning of this article utilizes this thought. However, this is more a traditional teaching beginning within the Roman Catholic Church, and is not supported by history, nor by Scripture. It should be noted that the Jewish leaders handed Christ over to the Romans for the singular reason that they could not execute Him themselves, and as such abandoned Him to Roman executory custom.


After the scourging, the soldiers mocked Jesus. Perhaps they were acting out of nationalistic pride, given that the charges against Him were that He claimed to be king. Perhaps they were simply amused by having a Jew handed over to be executed by them, and chose to make an example. Or perhaps they were simply barbarous brutes intent on inflicting as much pain and agony as they possibly could. Regardless of their intent, we do know that after inflicting a particularly harsh flogging, they chose to beat Him further.

A crown of thorns was woven for Him to wear. It is not known for certain which plant supplied the materials for the crown of thorns, though tradition suggests it was a plant known as Euphorbia milii. While this is contested, the plant is decorative, pliable, and the thorns are quite sharp and fairly long. These facts suggest a plausibility to the tale, given the Roman's fondness for decorative plants. What we do know is that this crown of thorns was woven and placed upon Christ's head and a robe was draped across His back. After mocking Him, the soldiers proceeded to beat Him with the "scepter" they had given Him and then ripped the robe from Him. Apart from the beating He took from the stick, violently removing the robe would have reopened the wounds He received during His flogging, resulting in further blood loss.

A Quick Note: This is not the first recorded Roman execution that utilized methods not generally prescribed by their usual execution practice. For instance, one historian recorded the crucifixion of a criminal coated in honey to attract insects; another recorded a condemned man made to walk to the place of execution in sandals made of rope and bone fragments.

It is recorded in the Gospels that Christ was made to walk up the hill to Golgotha while carrying His cross. This has translated to a tradition wherein Christ carries a full cross; though Jesus was certainly strong enough to have done this in peak condition, it is not supported by historical fact. The cross that Christ and every other condemned man carried was actually the cross beam itself, as the vertical beams were semi-permanent fixtures on the hills and roads around the Roman Empire. This exertion alone would have certainly caused Him to collapse along the way.

Once atop Golgotha, The beam was laid on the ground and Christ stretched across it. The first arm would have been stretched without much effort to a specific point, and a spike measuring five to seven inches was driven through His wrist. The point of insertion was very specific, and every Roman soldier was taught this: The point on the wrist was chosen because of its strength, and also because of the pain that it caused due to the severing of a specific nerve. This pain would have been immediate, causing Christ to impulsively recoil towards the wound. At this time, a leather thong would have been tied around His other wrist, and the soldiers would have forcibly wrenched that wrist to the point of the beam where it too was impaled.

A Quick Note: Here again we see tradition doing a great disservice. Traditionally Christ was pierced through the hands, and most Christians can name at least one song that speaks about His pierced hands. The disservice is in relating something that is not possible when telling the Gospel story. It is physically impossible for a human to support his weight on a pierced hand; the hand would very literally tear apart. Remember that for Christ's sacrifice to mean anything, He had to give His life as fully man- Thus, something physically impossible in the course of that sacrifice would invalidate the sacrifice. He was pierced through the wrists- Not through the palm of His hand, as tradition so poorly recounts.

Once fastened to the cross beam, Christ would then be hoisted to the notch in the vertical pole. In many such crucifixions, the arms of the condemned were tied to the vertical beam to allow for easier hoisting without risking the condemned dying on the way up of asphyxiation. That may or may not have happened in the case of Christ, though it is likely as we are told that not a single bone was broken: Often during this hoisting process with an untied victim, bones in the arms would break under the stress. However what is certain is that on the way up the vertical beam, the wounds incurred during the scourging were violently and painfully reopened. It is also very likely that due to the weathering of the vertical post, Christ would have also suffered multiple splinters of wood. Small splinters in such damaged skin would certainly be painful, but these were more likely to be long, wide and jagged depending upon the age of the post.

After being suspended, His arms would have been untied, allowing Him to sink fully onto the spikes in His wrists. The soldiers would have immediately taken His feet and raised them slightly, keeping Him from suffocating, while preparing them for the next and final stage of the process. His feet were placed either on a block of wood, or on the post itself, and a spike about seven inches long was driven through the center of his feet; fastening them one atop the other, and both to the cross.

After this final torment at the hands of the soldiers, the death process began in earnest. In order to breath, Christ had to place all of His weight onto the spikes in His wrists and the one in His feet to draw Himself up to inhale. He would have had to do the same thing to exhale. In this way, blood loss and exhaustion gradually stole life from the condemned man. Christ also spoke, adding further stress and strain to His body. It was during this process that Christ would have, as the Gospels tell us, "Breathed His last."
Peter counsels us to be prepared to give a reason or defense for the hope that we have, and this applies not just to those who are openly hostile to the Gospel, but those who have questions about what they believe. More importantly, answering the questions of fellow believers; regardless of their maturity in the faith; is a vital and integral part of discipleship, which is one of the basic points of the Great Commission.


Why Was A Sacrifice Necessary?

The need for a sacrifice has long been questioned, not only by skeptical unbelievers, but also by Christians. While many followers of Christ will time and again proclaim their faith, it is natural for questions to arise; especially for those new to the faith. Sadly, much of the Christian Church responds to this sort of question with answers falling into one of two categories: The "Just Have Faith" category, or the "Never Question God" category.

These two categories of questions do more to weaken the foundation of faith than strengthen it, and I believe that it is well past time to straighten this out. Peter counsels us to be prepared to give a reason or defense for the hope that we have, and this applies not just to those who are openly hostile to the Gospel, but those who have questions about what they believe. More importantly, answering the questions of fellow believers; regardless of their maturity in the faith; is a vital and integral part of discipleship, which is one of the basic points of the Great Commission. Thus, my challenge to the Christian Church as a whole is this: Whenever our response to a question falls in one of the two categories mentioned above, let us interrupt ourselves and find the actual answer to the question; very often this sort of response-by-rote is an indication of a deficiency in our own study, and we owe it to ourselves and to the one who asked the question to faithfully search out the correct answer.

To answer why a sacrifice was necessary, we must first understand something of the nature of God Himself. To start, He is completely righteous, holy and good. To illustrate the magnitude of this point, the statement that "God is Love" is not stating that God embodies love as we know it, but rather that He is the definition of love; our understanding is flawed unless we know love as defined by God. Likewise, righteousness, holiness and goodness are defined by God; our understanding of these attributes are inherently flawed unless He is our standard.

Now we must understand sin's nature. Sin is literally rebellion against God; not so much His laws, but rather His nature. To illustrate this point, think of a genuinely good police officer. His purpose is to protect and to serve, and if we politely comply with his request ("stop and identify yourself, please") we are very likely to be treated fairly, respectfully, and mercifully. However, if we choose to run off, we are likely to be on the wrong end of a baton, taser or worse; the degree of our immediate pain is commensurate with how much rebellion we exhibit.

Now, using our two illustrations, God is very much like that genuinely good police officer. The difference is found in the fact that though even the most good cop is still a flawed human being; and thus able to look past some minor infraction they themselves may have committed; God is the absolute standard of holiness, and thus unable to overlook any act of rebellion without a commensurate punishment being levied. As a result, sin acts as a barrier between mankind and God. Since God is life itself, sin is death. Because sin is death, it requires death; in many ways, blood is the currency of sin.

sin acts as a barrier between mankind and God. Since God is life itself, sin is death. Because sin is death, it requires death; in many ways, blood is the currency of sin.

However, God is also the absolute standard of mercy. In keeping with His nature, He provided laws by which mankind could measure its sin. God is also the absolute standard of grace, and in keeping with this, provided a means of atonement: Literally, of paying for one's sin without the need to shed one's own blood.

Throughout the Old Testament, this was accomplished through the sacrifice of animals. Animals are not guilty of rebellion against God, and thus they have no sin. However, they are still under the effects of the curse brought into the world by sin, and as such are imperfect sacrifices; imperfect in part because they are under the curse of sin, and also because sin did not enter in through the animal kingdom, but through mankind. Because of this, a sacrifice did not cover all sin; it only covered the sin for which it was offered. The only sacrifice that would cover all sin had to come from a perfect human being- But as we've already stated, all of mankind is tainted by sin; by rebellion against the very nature of God.

Once again, it is the absolute grace and mercy of God that come into play. Obviously, no human born of a human union could make the necessary atonement, so God orchestrated one of the greatest miracles since the creation of the World: Christ was born, fully God, yet fully man. The perfect human to make the ultimate sacrifice for all sin.

This is why a sacrifice was necessary.

The Magnitude Of Christ's Sacrifice


You will remember that we mentioned that the method of covering sin through sacrifice is called atonement. This was such an integral part of the plan for the removal of sin from this world that it played a major role in the life of the nation of Israel throughout the Old Testament; indeed, sacrifices were made prior to Israel's existence as a nation.

It was with the nation of Israel, however, that the atonement practice was codified. While sacrifices were offered for individual sin whenever necessary, there was a single day set aside every year for a sacrifice on behalf of the nation as a whole; a sacrifice covering all twelve tribes of Israel. This day is known today as Yom Kippur, but in the Old Testament it was known as the Day of Atonement.

Allow me to walk you through this for the sake of illustrating just how truly amazing, awe-inspiring and incredible is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

On the Day of Atonement, one bull, two rams and two goats were sacrificed. The amount of blood spilled for this specific sacrifice averages to about twelve gallons; that's approximately one gallon for each of the twelve tribes. Please note that that is twelve gallons for the sins of one nation over the course of a single year.

Now, this sacrifice was presented from the time it was commanded to what is known as the "Silent Period" (about 400 years before the birth of Jesus Christ), which was a span of approximately 898 years. This means that for a single nation's yearly sins, roughly 10,776 gallons of blood was spilled. For one nation, and for a temporary covering.

Now jump with me to the present.

It has been estimated that from the time of Creation, approximately 108 billion people have lived on the planet Earth. That is from the time of Creation to the present, and growing; but for our purposes, we'll stick with the estimated figure.

In Luke 17:3-4, Christ tells His disciples that if a brother wrongs them seven times in a single day, and seven times asks forgiveness, they are to forgive that brother seven times. So as an unbelievably conservative estimate, we'll say that the average person commits seven sins a day. Only seven sins. With me so far?

So if the average person commits a mere seven sins a day, that means (not including leap years) that a person commits 2,555 sins in a year; and over an average lifespan of seventy-five years, commits 191,625 sins in a lifetime. Bear in mind as you look at these numbers that we are using conservative estimates for the number of sins committed in a single day, and a shorter lifespan than are being offered for the modern man- And these numbers are for one, single person.

When Christ was crucified, He was bled of nearly all of His blood. This statement is based upon forensic examinations of the historical accounts of Roman crucifixion practices and the accounts from the Gospels. (One such examination can be found here.) Should this hold true, this means that approximately one and a half gallons of blood was shed by Christ.

This means that one and a half gallons of blood shed by Jesus Christ, the perfect Lamb of God, covered an estimated 78 quintillion sins and growing. For illustration purposes, that is 78,000,000,000,000,000,000 plus sins since the beginning of time- And growing.

That should boggle the mind.

It gets even more amazing, however. We are told in the Gospels; by the lives and deaths of Christ's disciples; and by the testimony of countless others; that Christ rose from the dead. If even one sin could not be covered by His sacrifice; if even one sin was the one too many; Christ would never have risen, because the sacrifice would not have been perfect.

Yet Christ rose.

What Does All Of This Mean? (Or: TL;DR)

What this means, friends, is that not one single reader of this blog is without hope. It means that not a single non-reader of this blog is hopelessly lost. It means that the blood of Christ is pure enough to cover all sins.

It means that though our daily sins might hit double or triple digits, Christ can and will save us from sin's requirement of death. It means that the mercy and grace of God extends to all people, at any time, everywhere, until the end of time.

It means that our God is not only the absolute standard of holy, righteous, and good; but He is also the absolute standard of love, mercy and grace.

This means that one and a half gallons of blood shed by Jesus Christ, the perfect Lamb of God, covered an estimated 78 quintillion sins and growing. For illustration purposes, that is 78,000,000,000,000,000,000 plus sins since the beginning of time- And growing.

It means that God's love, mercy and grace extends so far as to envelop all of Creation; that through Christ's sacrifice even nature itself will be redeemed.

It means that because God is the absolute standard of all that is good, we have no reason to fear anything that is wrong, evil or just bad.

It means, my friends, that God loved and cared for you enough to "make a way where there was no way," and provide a bridge for you to cross over the divide into His loving arms.

The easy part is accepting the sacrifice that Christ made for us; as simple as praying "God, I recognize that I am a sinner, and that I fall short of perfection. I repent of my sins, and ask you to forgive me of my sins through the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross. I ask You to be the Lord of my life, and help me to live a life that reaches for You. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen."

The hard part, my friends, is living that life- But once again the grace and mercy of God is there, because just as He made a way to cross the divide, He is the absolute standard of faithfulness: He will strengthen us to live that life.

One of  the most beautiful representations I have come across. All credit to the original artist.


Note: This article has been edited for spelling and grammatical errors; however, it is not beyond the realm of possibility for some errors to have been overlooked. Please feel free to let me know if you find any. Thanks, and God bless!

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Contrast Within Pastoral Leadership Part 2

In continuing with the contrast of pastoral leadership, allow me to quickly recap the inspiration for these posts and the first three points I looked at in part one of this series. If you would like to read the first part, you can do so here.

I recently received a list of seven points explaining why the Christian Church does not need a senior pastor. While I agree with each point, I also saw a need to point out why they do not apply across the board. Painting with a broad brush is useful when seeking to point out a problem, but having done this many times I understand also that doing so can cause unintended repercussions. Knowing the author of this list would certainly not intend to cause division within a local body headed by a genuine servant-leader under the direction of the Lord, I am in this series seeking to list each point, give examples, and show exceptions to what are fast becoming generally true observations within the Western Church.

The points already mentioned are as follows:

1. Power Tends to Corrupt.

2. The senior CEO Pastor role just propagates the outdated power of the denomination / institution.

3. Holy Spirit instruction and direction trumps ALL other forms of authority.


Now continuing from the list...

4. Horizontal fellowship trumps butts in the pews and facing forward to our “King” Pastor.

The struggle for spiritual relevance and significance is usually not a people problem but a system problem. The answers aren't always going to be found in and from existing human leadership – but those who actually can hear the whispers of the Holy Spirit. Even the smallest child who can speak – [and] has the potential of speaking the words of the Holy Spirit. If only the 'leaders' are speaking during the fellowship time – it is guaranteed that MOST of what the Holy Spirit was saying during that time is missed. The answer is to create a space of fellowship for the Holy Spirit to speak through whatever means He sees fit!
I have been present in local bodies wherein a child spoke words of great encouragement and also of great conviction. The idea of a child speaking may seem foreign to some, but I harken back to the words of the Apostle Paul when writing to Timothy: "Let no one look down on you because of your age." There should certainly be something in place to a child from running wild through service, but much of that discipline ought to be instilled at home through the attention of loving and godly parents.
I personally see nothing wrong in requiring a child to speak first to their parent(s) before being allowed to speak so that the adult in authority over them may discern the accuracy of what the child believes to be from the Lord. However, we should not be so demanding as to reprimand a child for speaking in the moment if that word is indeed prompted by the Holy Spirit. A reprimand is in order if their speech is not in line with the Word of God, but in this way they are being taught in the assembly what the voice of the Lord sounds like, as opposed to their own minds creating something they believe to be profound.

In much the same way, any adult ought to be able to speak up when the Holy Spirit prompts such speech. No pastor is ever justified in shushing an adult if the word they give is backed by Scripture and prompted by the Holy Spirit. However, a good pastor will also take time after the service to take aside an adult who was in error and reprimand them privately, in humility and love. Anything else is a violation of the pastoral role, unless the word spoken was so grave in its error that correction must be given immediately.
An example of this last statement: There was a time when a woman in my church spoke up, stating matter-of-factly that the End Times, the final Antichrist, and the tribulation, could all be staved off or avoided entirely if the Body of Christ joined in prayer against it. Due to the gravity of the statement, correction was needed immediately; yet even in correcting the error of what had been spoken, those who held the woman accountable did so with love and humility. In this instance, it was clear that they did not wish to embarrass or shame her, but rather show why the statement was in error. This is immediate correction of a false statement done right.

So how can one know if one's church is quenching the Holy Spirit, and thus dead in many respects?

If one's church would be disrupted by a single "amen" during the preaching of the word, it may be dead.

If one's leadership refuses to acknowledge and pray for a need if it disrupts the order of service, one's church may be dead.

If one can set one's watch by where one is in service, one's church may be dead.

The pattern herein should be clear at this time.


5. We need humble spiritual leaders/elders, not power hungry rulers/CEO Senior Pastors.


Do I think the role of pastor is not needed? No. I think it is a gift to the Body – but it is not a dictatorial/authoritative model role –but one as a fellow sheep who always points you to the true Shepherd/Jesus, and always is looking out for your best interests and looks to give His love to you on every occasion. Think of it as not a 'leadership' role but as a personal assistant who is there to make sure you have everything you need. That perspective is HIGHLY different that how it is currently viewed and used. Think Jesus washing his disciple's feet. Actually Paul lists 4/5 gifting roles in the Body that are there TO SERVE, not to rule. The actual scriptural role of a 'pastor'/shepherd is greatly different than what we see in the American Church currently. ...Leadership by example will always be healthier than leading by authoritarian rule. The former allows for the blossoming of the human spirit under freedom. The latter blocks the flourishing of the human spirit under rule of tyranny. Real leaders don’t need followers. They don’t even need power. They lead by prestigious example and slip out of the strangleholds of power like a snake shedding its skin.

Humility is the callsign of a genuine leader of any sort, but is especially important for those within the pastoral office. As is mentioned in the above quote, Christ modeled this in stark contrast to the stereotypical pastor of today by washing the feet of His disciples.

There are genuine servant-leaders out there. They often go unseen because it is not the limelight they seek, but rather the Light of the World shining into whatever life they are able to impact. I am blessed to say that I have personally known a few of these men and women, and they are truly led by the Holy Spirit. (To those who were just now horrified that I would include women as I am speaking about pastoral leadership: That is another topic for another day.)

The fact of the matter is that leading from the "authoritarian role" as stated above is generally a poor model to pattern pastoral leadership after; not only because Christ did not do so, but also because we can see the ill effects of this kind of leadership all around us. Corporations fail, federal governments grow corrupt, and organizations of all kinds implode due to placing a great deal of the steering power (authority) in a single individual. "A true leader is one who leads by example," is a quote that most have heard at least once in their lives, and it is based upon Scripture. So if that sort of leadership is based upon Scripture, then what sort of defense can pastors that lead by intimidation, fear, or authority offer?

If one's church demands absolute  and blind adherence to those in authority, it may be unbiblical.

If one's pastors demand the flock take their word in place of God's Word, it is unbiblical.

If one's church leadership is appointed by popularity and not by qualification, it may be unbiblical.


6. Bestowing the role of a Senior CEO Pastor leads to apathetic pew sitters and goats.


“The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority.”
~Stanley Milgram 
A community leading itself tends to be a proactive community. A community commanded by a leader atop a hierarchy tends to be an apathetic, politically and spiritually myopic, and civically inert / salt-lost-its-usefulness community. So it goes with the “Senior CEO Pastor” tossing dictates down an ill-conceived chain of command. We have an entire American Church playing the victim, caught-up in a viciously codependent chain of obedience.

 Contrary to popular opinion, the opposite of love is not hate, but rather apathy. Hate most often comes from love, whether genuine or twisted, and is directed at whatever is perceived as harmful to the object of that love. This is why God hates sin; why the Psalmist as able to say that he "hates with a holy hatred"; and why we can honestly say that there are things we hate. If one is allergic to gluten, for instance, it may not be uncommon to hear one give voice to their hatred of it; it is to be expected, as gluten for that person causes harm.

Apathy, in contrast, is bred through accepted, learned or forced codependence upon an individual or group of individuals. The example often used in political circles is the current condition of the United States, wherein a large percentage of people are entirely apathetic in the face of the coming election; they have grown so due to their codependence upon the federal government, and so long as it continues to give them what they believe they need, nothing really matters. The politicians meanwhile are dependent upon the citizens for their position and income, and thus the chain of  apathetic codependence is forged.
It is much the same in a poorly operating church: The people grow dependent upon their leader for spiritual guidance and direction, while the leadership are dependent upon the people for their continued authority, and in many cases, their income. None of those within the flock are interested in stepping forward as a leader, or as a servant; and the leadership have no interest in being a follower or of losing their (oftentimes) laborless income.

The image used for this section is exceptionally appropriate, as the quote on the left comes from a meme created using the transcript of a large and well-known church; led by a larger-than-life and well-known pastor; who misquoted Joel 2:25. Those within the flock seemingly accepted it as Gospel, and no one in the entire auditorium (at least, no one caught on camera) were looking at their Bibles: They were too busy looking at the celebrity pastor. Someone from that service created a meme from it, they were so moved; and yet, their apathy is on display for all their posterity. For as long as the recordings of this sermon exist, this terrible misquote will continue to lead astray those looking to this specific man for guidance. On the right is the actual text of Joel 2:25, and the egregious error of the pastor in question can be seen in full detail; yet so too can the pitiful and genuinely frightening apathy of his flock.

If no one in one's church opens a Bible at any time during service, one's church may be apathetic.

If the pastor does not quote Scripture accurately, or paraphrase properly, one's church may be apathetic.

If one simply doesn't care, just as no other member of one's church cares, one's church is apathetic.


7. A Senior CEO American Pastor role just isn't scriptural in NT theology.

Paul sets up an elder requirements for Timothy and Titus to follow, not a top-down Pastoral executive structure for the setting up of 'churches' or fellowships. The fellowships were community based and meeting from house-to-house. Sure there were evangelists, prophets, and apostles that would come through the towns and cities and speak/teach and fellowship with the groups. And as we read Paul's epistles and John's and Peter's we can get an idea of the style of each of them. They were all different – as we all are. But those apostles and other gifts to the Body came through to serve and equip NOT to be served.

Herein is the crux of the matter, though it may at first be a bit confusing.

A properly running church has a top-down structure only when one lays it out on paper. This is, in some ways, the result of the servant-leadership of the church operating as they should; but also because human nature requires an authority structure of some kind, even if it is solely for the purpose of rebellion. Thus, in a properly functioning church wherein the servant-leaders are regularly seen meeting the needs of the church body, they would be considered the highest point of that church on paper.
In actual practice, however, it looks much different. The pastor as a servant-leader does not guide by authority but rather by example. The elders, deacons, and any assistant pastors do the same in such a church, while the rest of the body benefits from their ministry. In turn, the individual members of the body are instructed, encouraged and strengthened to take on servant-leadership positions of their own; and in this way, the church grows.

In my own church, it is not uncommon for our pastoral leadership to tap a member of the congregation to give a message; share a devotion; help to lead worship; or a dozen other things usually expected to be done by the leadership of the church. A foreign concept in the eyes of many mega-churches today, yet very biblical and sound. By doing this, the pastors are fostering, encouraging and challenging the congregation to grow and move into the calling that God has placed upon their individual lives.

In truth, all other forms of leadership in a church are very much new age in their approach; while I understand the need for structure and leadership, this fact remains incontrovertible. Another term for this sort of structure is Nicolaitan, and in Revelation 2:6 and 15 Jesus Christ tells the churches of Ephesus and Smyrna that this is something He hates. The Body of Christ is not intended to be housed in a single building to which believers drive an hour to attend service; it is meant to be a living organism that spreads across the globe.

If one must get approval from one's pastor before opening a Bible study in one's home, one's church may be Nicolaitan.

If one must get approval from one's leadership to attend service at another church, one's church is Nicolaitan.

If one must get permission to speak the Gospel outside the four walls, one's church is Nicolaitan, and to reiterate, hated by God.


This concludes this series. As always, please feel free to share across social media, and comment below. May God bless you abundantly as you seek to do His will and continue in obedience to His Word.

Monday, September 12, 2016

Contrast Within Pastoral Leadership Part 1

Recently I was sent a list of seven points explaining why the Christian Church does not need a senior pastor. As I read, I found myself in an unusual position: One in which I agreed wholeheartedly with each point and argument made, but was also able to see why they could not be applied across the board.

As amazing or fantastical as it may sound, there actually are pastors out there that have never taken a cent from the church they lead; who have never used their "power" for the purposes of manipulation; and who genuinely perform their roles as an honest-to-God servant-leader. I know this because I have been under the leadership of at least two of these pastors, and my life is so much the better for it. As a direct result of these people, I am able to say that I know what true leadership within the Body of Christ is, because I was able to see it exemplified.

However, the points are still very much accurate for the vast majority of hyper-publicized churches around the world. This is a sad statement to make, yet it is unfortunately a true statement also. The facts, figures, eyewitness accounts, and very public self-destruction of such churches all support this statement also.

Because of this sad truth, I would like to present to you the seven points I received, and contrast these with genuine servant-leaders that I have known. It is my hope that by seeing the examples and the exceptions, you might come to recognize what sort of leader your local body sits under.

1. Power Tends to Corrupt

From the list:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”   
- Lord Acton

This is the biggest reason why we do not need a Senior CEO Pastor. The
average human simply cannot handle power. As Abraham Lincoln observed, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Authentic power empowers others. Honest power has no need to cling to power, it releases it instead. It
spreads it out. It expiates it. It empowers others. Besides there truly is only ONE shepherd and His name is Jesus, all the rest of us are His sheep. God's Kingdom is upside down in comparison to the world's institutional model dealing with leadership. Soooo... top down authority models within the Church only create more problems.

Now, there are definitely churches that have this problem. I don't think any of us would have too hard a time of naming off some of the most visible examples, as they are in the news regularly.

However, it should be noted that there are senior pastors out there that do not utilize power with corrupted motives. I will certainly acknowledge that most of those senior pastors who have enjoyed the limelight are often there for a reason, and that not all of those reasons are noteworthy for their Christ-like qualities. With this said, it is often the pastors of small churches, with an outward focus for the community and an inward focus of service, that use the power their office has entrusted to them with humility.

So how can one tell if the pastor of one's church is utilizing power in a corrupt manner?

Well, if that pastor calls names from the pulpit, they may be power corrupt. (There is rarely a proper time for this to happen, and I personally have seen it only once in twenty years.)

If that pastor demands that people refer to them by their office at all times, in and out of church, and will publicly shame those who don't, they may be power corrupt. (It is one thing to teach about respect for a position; it is entirely different to be consumed by it to the point of hurting those that office is meant to protect.)

These are just two signs, but I believe you can see the pattern.


2. The senior CEO Pastor role just propagates the outdated power of the denomination / institution.

If anyone has ever visited an institutional or denominational church, then chances are they are very much aware of what they were visiting. However, those who attend such churches regularly, and perhaps were a part of it prior to it fitting in this category, may not realize this to be true. Thus, allow me to share from the list once again:

The Institutional / Denominational Church has followed the same structure and power hungry struggle as the 'State' (Government). The Church has become exactly like the State. The state: billions of people elbowing each other through the codependent wretchedness of hierarchical violence. The state: a propped up entity of ominous design, placating its citizens with freedom like a carrot dangling on a stick. ...Alas, the accumulation of the state has led to the erosion of individual freedom, and the Church institution / denomination has taken away the individual's freedom to be led by the Holy Spirit. A bottom-up approach toward reclaiming individual power, and thus individual freedom, should come first. But that doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to what must come second (if there is to be anything left to be free in at all) –a systematic collapse from the top-down. Maybe that's why there are SO many different denominations – people want to be 'free' and thus just started another.

Once more, I can understand and appreciate where the writer is coming from. More and more, I see the writing on the wall for the Western Church, specifically those with an institutional, denominational or combination approach. Allow me to be clear: I have been to institutionalized churches that have run well; that have allowed the Holy Spirit freedom to move; and that have been full of genuinely caring people seeking the will of the Lord. Unfortunately, these have been few. I have also been to denominational churches wherein the denomination's name on the sign simply informed others of what they actually believed; and within the walls of these churches I found some of the most godly, Christ-like people I've ever come across. Again, these have been few in number.

So how can one tell if one's church has reached this point of religious depravity?

If one's church has a "if you're not for us, you're against us" attitude, it may be depraved.

If one's church leadership (that is, everyone in leadership, not just the senior pastor) lords their authority over the "peons," it may be depraved.

Again, I believe you can see the pattern.



3. Holy Spirit instruction and direction trumps ALL other forms of authority.


The problem with the institutional denominational senior CEO pastoral model is that it propagates blind obedience to --- human control, rather than individual Holy Spirit control. Is there a greater chance of mistakes being made with no 'head' senior pastor's 3 step weekly sermon to follow and just relying on the Holy Spirit? Absolutely yes. But I'd rather have more mistakes with more freedom, than less mistakes because of less freedom. ...Spiritual covering comes from God – not a human leader. Real accountability comes from very close intimate friendships, which our culture, Church, and society admittedly has lost.
Once again, this list is dead on point, and the writer touches on one of my personal hot button issues: Accountability.

In a properly operating church, the pastor is accountable to the flock, just as the flock is accountable to the leadership, and all are accountable to one another. In a poorly operating church, the pastor is above (or beyond) accountability of any kind, yet holds the flock accountable for the smallest infractions. I have been in churches wherein the pastor was carrying on two different affairs with women in the church, and everyone knew about it! Yet, that same pastor had the nerve to hold everyone else accountable for their various addictions- Sexual and otherwise. Because of his brutish approach to his position, everyone within the church had become terrified of confronting an obvious issue.

In the church I attend now, our pastors hold themselves accountable to not only their flock, but also the authority which they have voluntarily placed themselves under: Specifically, our bishop. No, this is not a bishop such as those within the Catholic church have; instead, it is based very much upon the model laid out in Acts and other Pauline letters. Yes, there is a proper method of approaching a pastor on a perceived issue; but there is also a proper method for holding anyone within the church accountable, regardless of their title or position.

As pertains to freedom, a properly operating church allows the Holy Spirit to rule the service. God is a God of order, and thus we may expect a certain order of service. However, when the Lord draws someone to the church for the purpose of ministry to their specific need, the pastor must not quench the Spirit by rigidly adhering to five hymns, four hers and an hour long sermon with four collections. Instead, the pastor ought to allow the Holy Spirit to change the flow of service according to His will, not to the comfort of the pastoral staff.

So how can one tell if one's church is stuck in its ways and refusing to allow the freedom of the Holy Spirit?

If one's service can be expected from Sunday to Sunday regardless of who walks through the doors, one's church may be stuck.

If one sets aside a certain amount of money with a specific bill or check for each collection, one's church may be stuck.

If one finds oneself excited because the annual "Holy Spirit Sunday" is coming ever closer, one's church may be stuck.

Again, the pattern here should be clear for most readers.


This has been the first three of a two part series taken from these seven points. I will post again soon, but until then, I value your feedback. Feel free to share on social media, and pose comments or questions below. I will strive to respond in a timely manner.

Monday, November 17, 2014

My Issue With NowTheEndBegins - Part 1

How NTEB Got Me Fired Up This Time

If you are friends with Dara and I on Facebook (through Jax, of course) then you know I recently went off on the writer of the article on the ecumenical gathering organized by Humanum, an organization dedicated to the promotion of marriage between a man and a woman within faith communities. They approached the Vatican to cosponsor an event in which they will gather religious leaders of many faiths from around the world to speak on this very subject. In addition to Pope Francis, multiple Christian leaders will be present, and these include the author of Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren. Anyone who is familiar with me knows that I have a major issue with Mr. Warren, especially with his now oft repeated statements that Islam and Christianity worship the same God- Let me be clear from the outset: I absolutely reject Warren's assertion that the God of the Bible is the god of Islam. 

However, NTEB mischaracterizes it as a "Global Chrislam Conference." Right there, one should be put completely on guard against what is coming, yet I am discovering that many Christians are falling for this garbage. Thus, I am writing tonight about it, and why any Christ follower should be wary of anything that comes from NTEB.

The article opens with the following statement:

On Monday, November 17, 2014, Pope Francis will host a global ecumenical conference featuring Muslim leaders, pagans, and Chrislam founder Rick Warren from Saddleback Church in California. --NTEB

Let's stop there for just a minute. Chrislam is a religious practice established in the 1970's that recognizes the Q'ran and the Bible as sacred texts. It was created by Tela Tella in Lagos, Nigeria. The idea of mixing these two utterly incompatible religions is by no means new, and Rick Warren had nothing to do with the founding of this sect. Nevertheless, here in the United States, he has unilaterally been recognized as the creator of this abomination of doctrine. Folks, Warren, for all of his abhorrent mistakes and transgressions, did not found this crud.

Moreover, NTEB declares that it will be attended by Muslim leaders, pagans and Rick Warren. We've already discussed Warren and Chrislam, so let us turn our attention to the word "pagan." Paganism is a very specific belief system, and does not- Cannot for the sake of accuracy and truth -Be inclusive of all the religions one disapproves of. Paganism at its core is the worship of nature; it does not include Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, etc. If one wished to bunch all of these religions under one single label, it would be "heathen," or better yet, "deceived." Moreover, the conference is being attended by those from the orthodox Jewish community and the Messianic Jewish community. These too are "pagans?" This inattention to detail (and we must hope it was a sincere lack of attention to detail rather than an intentional and outright misuse) is typical of NTEB.

Let us continue looking at the article.

Note the high number of professing pagan religions that will be represented there. The Pope doesn’t care what you believe as long as you follow Rome.     --NTEB

NTEB has already mischaracterized the conference's intent. They further skew the representation by implying that it is the Vatican that is leading this conference. In fact, Pope Francis is merely a speaker; the organization responsible for the initial planning is doing the hosting. That organization is so-called "interfaith," meaning that no one religion has a controlling hand, regardless of what NTEB wishes with obvious sincerity.



...beyond it’s stated purpose, the real reason for the global confab is to continue Pope Francis’ work of merging all religions into the One World Religion mentioned in the book of Revelation. Any excuse for a get together is fine, so long as all religions agree to lay down before the Vatican and get in line behind the Pope. --NTEB

This is an absolute and unbelievably blatant slam on Catholics; not to mention a truly awful understanding of Revelation. I want to make sure everyone understands something about the book of Revelation: Nowhere in Revelation does it state that there will be a "One World Religion" in those terms. Thus, everything we know about the One World Religion that accompanies the rise of the final Antichrist comes from pure interpretation. Mind, that interpretation, when done properly, gives us a very clear vision of a universal (here meaning global) religion.

Note what Revelation actually says about this global religion, and make exceptional note of the imagery.

1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.” 3 And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. 5 And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.” 6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.
When I saw her, I marveled greatly. 7 But the angel said to me, “Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her. 8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come. 9 This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; 10 they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. 11 As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. 12 And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. 13 These are of one mind, and they hand over their power and authority to the beast. 14 They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”
15 And the angel said to me, “The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and languages. 16 And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, 17 for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. 18 And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.”
  --Revelation 17:1-18 [ESV]

The word "harlot" is used throughout the Old and New Testaments to reference false religion. It will dominate the whole world, thus it is global. The adultery (sexual immorality) mentioned illustrates the influence the religion has on the leaders of the world. The drunkenness mentioned refers to these people becoming drunk with power.

What it does not say is what that religion will be or what it will spring from. All of those who say it is the Vatican are coming off of pure speculation- Even those who say they've had a revelation from God on the matter ought to be thoroughly examined for past accuracy before being believed. I myself believe that it will be a religion that is nonexistent today- That it will spring from the rise of the living statue, not from anything today; again, this is purely speculation, and is open to correction based upon contextual and critical Scriptural argument. It is worth noting that the rise of this religion, however, comes after the rise of the Antichrist and the creation of the living statue, or the image of the beast which has been given life by the false prophet.

Regardless, the Pope is not calling for all religions to fall in line with the Vatican- If he were to do this, you can bet there would be war. He is joining in a conference on the importance of marriage. Any further purpose is conjecture, and must be treated as such- With a heavy dose of skepticism and a demand for evidence. NTEB cannot provide such evidence, instead pointing to Scripture warped and taken out of context, viewed through a lens dirtied with agenda and bias. I absolutely and emphatically challenge NTEB and/or any of their supporters to present evidence to the contrary.

NTEB Calls This Reporting


Last year, Anglican priest and close friend of Pope Francis Tony Palmer gave an impassioned plea to Kenneth Copeland’s church to “return home to Mother Rome”, only to die mere months later in a mysterious motorcycle accident.      --NTEB
The Late Anglican Bishop Tony Palmer
(YouTube)
I find it in particularly poor taste to call Palmer's motorcycle accident "mysterious," thus implying that it was somehow Divine judgment. I find it even more poor taste to state that Palmer called the ministers at Copeland's church (another minister I've taken issue with) to return to "mother Rome." NTEB claims that Copeland has never been in the Body of Christ- I take offense to this as well. He has preached prosperity, and yes, that teaching is heretical; but he has never led anyone to turn their lives over to anyone but Christ. As Nate so eloquently stated during one of our recent broadcasts, there are very few Bible translations out there that will not bring a person to salvation. The same can be said for Christian ministers, no matter how wayward aspects of their theology.

Let us examine the main charge: That Tony Palmer pled with these attending ministers to return to "mother Rome."

The first and most obvious to those who know their church history is that Anglicans do not answer to the Vatican. An Anglican priest can be excommunicated for this, though the right of excommunication is rarely exercised. Anglicans split from Rome before the King James Bible was brought to the masses, and though Roman Catholicism has opened their churches to those Anglican members upset with recent decisions to allow homosexual priests and marriages within their denomination, they are still not Catholic.

The second most obvious (and perhaps most obvious to most people) is that Catholic priests cannot marry. They are bound from marriage by their oaths. Tony Palmer was married. He and his widow have two children. Let me say it again: Anglicans are not Catholic. Moreover, Tony Palmer began his ministry as a supercharged, spirit filled, pentecostal new convert.

Finally, and most important: NTEB puts "mother Rome" in quotations. Palmer never, not once, uses this phrase in his entire 30+ minute address. He did say that people should take back the word catholic for what it really means, and we'll get to that in a moment. NTEB edited the video of Palmer's address so that it sounded like he was being blatently arrogant. In fact, he was giving Scriptural and historical support for everything he stated. He also said "Luther's protest is over; is yours?" NTEB states at this point that "for all good King James Version believing Christians, the protest will never be over!" Oh, fools that you are! The protest was indeed over salvation through faith alone, and Luther did indeed say that it was works which proved faith. The Roman Catholic church did indeed sign an accord fundamentally changing their doctrine regarding salvation through works, and as such- Yes, the protest IS over.

What should truly stand out here though is that NTEB flat out lied through invented attribution and mischaracterization, and all to bring dishonor to a man who was saved by faith, began working within the Anglican church, and then began to work with, not for, the Roman Catholic church to bring genuine salvation to their members.

Forgive me for this next comment; I make it with full understanding that I may offend some who read this, yet also with full conviction of the truth of the statement: I believe there is a special place within the Lake of Fire for those who claim Christ, yet who tear down His Body- And I pray that the members of NTEB do not find themselves there.


In another article authored by NTEB on this subject, they make the following statement:

The video you are about to see is shocking. It is a blatant, full-frontal assault by the Vatican to, once again, attempt to swallow up the professing Christian church like they did back in 325 AD when the Catholic Church was invented. What you will hear Kenneth Copeland and Anglican priest Tony Palmer – a personal friend and confidant of Pope Francis – say is that “if you are born again, then you are a Catholic” among a host of other outright lies. --NTEB

Take note that the Vatican, in reaching out for the purpose of reconciliation, is actually assaulting Christianity... According to NTEB, that is.

Their reference to 325 A.D. is weakly accurate historically, though exceptionally flawed in application. The Catholic church was formed in a fairly recognizable fashion around 325 A.D. However, the word "catholic" had been in use far before then- We'll get to that in a moment. NTEB goes to their standard vitriol in explaining this, quoting the oft used but wholly misrepresented Emperor Constantine story. They state, as many have, that Constantine declared himself as the head of the Christian church- This is almost entirely without basis. "Almost entirely," because there were critics of his who declared that's virtually what he did- None of these critics to my knowledge were Christians, however. They also claim that Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome; this is not so. What he did do was end the state-sponsored persecution of Christians, allowing them to once again worship within their homes and within church buildings with little to no fear of retaliation.

As a point of historical fact for those who hold to the belief that Constantine ordered Christianity to become the state religion; instituted Roman idol worship within the faith (Sunday worship, etc); and created what we know to be the Catholic Church, there is a minor problem: Constantine died in 337 A.D. and Christianity became the state religion in 381 A.D., forty-four years after his death. It is ironic that NTEB lambasts PBS on a nearly regular basis, and yet espouses the same identical story regarding the institution of Christianity that PBS also forwards.

What everyone misses is the fact that it was the professing Christian church uniting under the first Roman ruler to convert to Christianity and prove his faith by his actions. The institution of Christianity as the state religion happened much later, and was the direct result of multiple conflicts within the area- The Catholic church (again, we'll get into the use of "catholic" soon) gathered its supporters and recognizing the need for a uniting secular ruler, appointed Charlemagne the first "Holy Roman Emperor." The age of the Holy Roman Catholic Church begins here- Not with Constantine. Now, remember I said their statement was weakly accurate historically? Let me explain how low the bar must be set for them to be remotely accurate: They pegged the Roman Catholic Church as starting around 325 A.D., but Charlemagne was appointed as Emperor in 800 A.D.

Now to the crux of the matter- The statement that "if you are born again, you are catholic." (Please note the lack of capitalization.) 

The word 'catholic' comes from the Greek and means 'throughout the whole.' The Christian church used this expression as early as 110 A.D. to reference the Body of Christ, and possibly earlier. It was later adopted by the organized movement we now know as the Roman Catholic Church, and then tainted by the corruption the church fell into. Watching Palmer's address in context reveals this very thing- That he was talking in reference to the earliest understanding, and not stating that all Christians are part of the Roman Catholic Church; he could have lost his priesthood for that!

Later in this article, NTEB claims that Palmer was lying about the Glory of God holding us together via insinuation. They quote Paul when he tells the Church in Rome not to allow other doctrines to sway them from what they'd already received, not unlike his admonition in Galatians. Yet, there it is in red and white: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one" -John 17:22 and from the KJV itself.

NTEB - The Charges Do Not End Here


My issues with NTEB do not stop with this abominable use of the word "journalism." (Yes, that's what they call this garbage, unless one can take "NTEB News Desk" to mean anything else.) It goes far beyond the intentional character assassination and slander they call reporting. However, this particular article can go only so long, and thus, I will have to continue in a second installment.

Allow me to say something positive about NTEB though, as I feel that all criticism should be rounded out with some form of praise for a job done well, however minor that right doing may be: They support Israel unflinchingly, and they support Joel Rosenberg's Joshua Fund as well. I must give them kudos for that at least.