In regards to the last post that points out how all of our misdeeds will be shouted from the roof tops, I was watching a television show that captures sexual predators as they are in the act of seducing a decoy who they think is a minor. In every case, the person is shocked when the television host appears instead of the thirteen year old girl they thought they came to meet and have sex with. They all say the same thing, how they were not going to do anything wrong or how they actually came to the house to give the young lady some fatherly advice.
I can’t imagine how embarrassing it would be to be in their shoes as their wives, children, parents, friends, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, neighbors or employers watch them squirm under the television lights and how we all judge them as bad people caught in something that we would never do. The best part of the show is the self righteous part that we, the viewer, get to participate in, thinking to ourselves that we are bad but at least we are not that bad. The embarrassment and pain suffered by those men and their friends and family is indicative what we will face on the day of judgement without Jesus as our intercessor.
As we continue on in Luke 12:4, Jesus tells us that we should not live in fear of those who wish to kill us. He points out that they can only kill the body, nothing else. That would have been a galvanizing point for me if I was there and the looks on the faces of the followers probably nodded along with everything Jesus said and all of a sudden wanted clarification on that last part and with a snap of the head, asked the person next to them, “Did He say what I thought He said?”
I found the following information on a website at http://www.bpnews.org/bpnews.asp?ID=13546, and you can go there to read the complete article.
In A.D. 165, the Roman Prefect Rusticus encouraged Justin Martyr and his six companions to be sensible. They only needed to swear to the divinity of Emperor Marcus Aurelius and they would go free, unmolested. Threats of a swift beheading at the hands of a centurion did not shake their faith in Christ.
"Do with us what you will," Justin replied. "We are Christians and do not worship idols."
Justin and his six companions, including one woman, were slain by order of the prefect. Today their blood and their confession of faith in Christ cry out to those of us who now believe in persevering no matter the costs.
A more modern day accounting of taking Luke 12:4 literally is found in the example of the captivity of Martin and Gracia Burnham. I found a very good accounting of their ordeal at the hands of a group known as Abu Sayyaf. You can read the complete article that shows the kindness shown to Gracia at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-24-burnham-cover_x.htm .
...the couple never had much. But on May 28, 2001, Martin got a surprise. Gracia had arranged a night at a resort on the island of Palawan for their 18th wedding anniversary. Their three children would stay with friends in the village where the family lived north of Manila.
Kidnapped
That night, Muslim rebels from a group called Abu Sayyaf sneaked into the resort and abducted the Burnhams and 18 other people. In February of 2002, after Abu Sayyaf had been accused of links to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, U.S. soldiers arrived in the Philippines to help find the rebels and their hostages.
The Burnhams were marched at gunpoint through almost impenetrable jungle. Martin, 42, was handcuffed and tied to a leash. They suffered from various intestinal viruses and developed sores all over their bodies. Both were malnourished. Martin lost about 40 of his 155 pounds.
Eventually all the hostages were released except the Burnhams and a Filipina nurse. (She would also die in the final shootout.) Frightened by gunbattles between their captors and their would-be rescuers, the Burnhams wondered if they would see home again.
Gracia, 43, would start when she heard a twig snap. She often burst into tears. When a Philippine television crew linked up with the rebels and interviewed the couple, Gracia cried: "We've been forgotten. ... We need someone to show some mercy."
If they felt deserted, the Burnhams did not desert God. Martin accepted Jesus' greatest challenge: Love your enemy. "Martin built a relationship with those guys," Gracia recalled recently in a videotaped message to supporters. "Martin said to me, 'Scripture says that if you hope to be great in God's kingdom, you must be the servant of all. It doesn't say the servant of everyone but terrorists.' And Martin was always willing to serve those guys. If they asked him to carry something, he had such a good attitude. ... He'd even volunteer sometimes if he didn't have things to carry."
Martin taught his guards English and shared food with them. They would apologize for chaining him to a tree each night, and he would thank them. The guerrillas' leader was Abu Sabaya. He regarded himself as a devout Muslim, though he was capable of great cruelty, including the beheading of Guillermo Sobero, an American who was seized with the Burnhams.
Most captives would have told Sabaya what he wanted to hear. Martin told him what he thought God wanted him to hear. As Gracia stood in the background and cautioned her husband with a slitting motion across her throat, Martin told Sabaya that although he would one day be judged for his sins, Christ died so everyone's sins might be forgiven.
Martin Burnham was a pilot — not a preacher or pastor. It was as if the sexton stepped to the pulpit and gave the Easter sermon.
Two weeks after the June shootout in which Martin Burnham was killed, Sabaya was ambushed at sea by Philippine marines. His body was riddled with bullets and fell overboard into shark-infested waters. It has never been found.
During their captivity, there were several accounts of how Martin was threatened with execution and his response was always the same, (I paraphrase) “ you can threaten me, but I will die when God tells me to die, not you.” Our faith is easily lived until we are given a choice on giving up on something as valuable as our own lives or the lives of our family, to follow God.
My faith in Jesus Christ was galvanized when I realized that the apostles willingly gave up their lives rather than deny who Jesus was and is. These men who hid in a room together, without a plan and knowing that the authorities were coming for them next, went out boldly after seeing the risen Christ. On our behalf, they spoke to Him, broke bread with Him and even put a hand inside His open wound and with the knowledge that He was and is who He says He is, went into the world and preached the gospel without fear for their own lives.
As I said in an earlier posting, if just one of the apostles had denied Jesus during their torture and execution, they would have been pulled from peril, cleaned up and we would have read to this day how they denied Christ and that they were part of a phony religious scheme. Instead, these frightened followers became emboldened by the resurrection of Jesus and willingly went to their deaths, and their example still inspires believers today.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Disneyland and Jesus
In chapter 12 of the book of Luke, we are witness to a scene that describes a crowd following Jesus that numbers in the thousands. Reading this passage reminds me why I hate to be in a crowd. While growing up in southern California, I visited Disneyland to the point that it made me literally, sick. I remember one new years eve that my wife and I went with friends to Disneyland and I was part of one of the largest crowds I have ever been in. I’m sorry, the Pirates of the Caribbean is a cool attraction but never worth a two hour wait. People were obviously drawn to the presence of Jesus and crowds were just part of the equation.
Now in the middle of all of this pandemonium, the apostles are probably expecting to hear some words from Jesus as to how they can control the crushing crowd but instead are told something that should shake every one of us to our very human foundation. Jesus tells them, and us, that ALL of our darkest secrets will be shouted from the roof top so that everyone can hear what they are. I don’t know about you, I am not looking forward to that happening. My only relief is that, as a Christian, those terrible deeds are forgiven and when the devil, my accuser, stands there and tells God and everyone else just how rotten I am, my Redeemer will intercede and explain that those sins are forgiven and are not valid anymore.
Jesus also speaks of the hypocrisy that invades religion and how it ruins the faith of those in and out of the church. As I pointed out earlier, hypocrisy allows the enemies of God to gain a foothold in their battle for the souls of men.
Now in the middle of all of this pandemonium, the apostles are probably expecting to hear some words from Jesus as to how they can control the crushing crowd but instead are told something that should shake every one of us to our very human foundation. Jesus tells them, and us, that ALL of our darkest secrets will be shouted from the roof top so that everyone can hear what they are. I don’t know about you, I am not looking forward to that happening. My only relief is that, as a Christian, those terrible deeds are forgiven and when the devil, my accuser, stands there and tells God and everyone else just how rotten I am, my Redeemer will intercede and explain that those sins are forgiven and are not valid anymore.
Jesus also speaks of the hypocrisy that invades religion and how it ruins the faith of those in and out of the church. As I pointed out earlier, hypocrisy allows the enemies of God to gain a foothold in their battle for the souls of men.
Monday, August 18, 2008
In Luke 11:52, Jesus tells the religious experts that they will be held responsible for their followers who do not enter heaven because of false teachings and rules placed by them upon their followers. The key offense in this passage is the hiding of essential and Godly knowledge in the pursuit of religion.
Luke then tells us that the religious leaders that were listening to Jesus, flipped their lid and went on the attack, questioning Jesus so as to get Him to give them even one wrong religious answer that would allow them to bring charges against Him.
I don’t know about you, but that must have been a lively discussion and anyone who thinks of Jesus as this meek, weak and unoffensive person who spent His earthly life in an passive way, should probably think again.
Christ saw the evil in the way that these religious leaders kept moving the goal line, so to speak. This is a Godly example of how we are to confront evil and not allow it to establish itself in our presence.
It is important to note that a church can have rules and regulations but still be focused on Jesus Christ as God who became man, was beaten and killed for our transgressions, defeated death and rose into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father to this day. A church can have rules, clergy and traditions and still be true to God and His plan for salvation. But when they go too far off God’s reservation, so to speak, they become the kind of religious institution that Jesus was at odds with in this chapter.
Luke then tells us that the religious leaders that were listening to Jesus, flipped their lid and went on the attack, questioning Jesus so as to get Him to give them even one wrong religious answer that would allow them to bring charges against Him.
I don’t know about you, but that must have been a lively discussion and anyone who thinks of Jesus as this meek, weak and unoffensive person who spent His earthly life in an passive way, should probably think again.
Christ saw the evil in the way that these religious leaders kept moving the goal line, so to speak. This is a Godly example of how we are to confront evil and not allow it to establish itself in our presence.
It is important to note that a church can have rules and regulations but still be focused on Jesus Christ as God who became man, was beaten and killed for our transgressions, defeated death and rose into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father to this day. A church can have rules, clergy and traditions and still be true to God and His plan for salvation. But when they go too far off God’s reservation, so to speak, they become the kind of religious institution that Jesus was at odds with in this chapter.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Killing God's Messenger
Moving on in Luke 11:50, Jesus warns that those responsible for the murder of God’s prophets, from Abel to Zechariah will be judged by Him for those death’s.
Again, we live our lives under the false impression that God is not paying attention to the details. Those that have, continue and will murder the messenger’s of God, think that they will get away with their transgressions because there is an absence of immediate Godly judgement immediately following the sinful deed.
In the case of Abel, he was woefully unprepared for the murderous wrath coming from his brother. After all, I am sure that he trusted Cain and when he was invited to walk in the fields with his brother, he was delighted to go with him.
In my bible I have made a note that the name Cain means “Acquired” and Abel means “Breath”. In Genesis 4:1-12 gives an accounting of the death of Abel and how the blood of Abel cries out to God, from the ground. I think that we have to keep in mind that this is the very picture of a dysfunctional family of man, from the get go. God must have and I’m sure continues to wonder if we are worth the trouble to keep around.
I found a website that offers a pretty good sermon on the death of Zechariah in a historical framework. I highlighted a portion of the sermon here and if you would like to visit the website, the address is http://www.rutgerschurch.com/Sermons/sermon071303.html .
On Speaking God's Truth to Power
© by the Reverend Dr. Byron E. Shafer
A sermon preached at Rutgers Presbyterian Church
on July 13, 2003; the 15th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year B
Scripture Lessons: II Chronicles 24:17-22; Mark 6:14-29
In your imagination, travel with me back to the last half of the 9th century BCE, some 2,850 years ago, when God’s people of Israel were divided into two kingdoms, the southern nation of Judah and the northern nation of Israel.
When King Ahaziah of Judah is slain by followers of the new and insurgent dynasty up north, in Israel, Ahaziah’s mother, named Athaliah, seeks to succeed her deceased son and to assume the throne of Judah herself. Her move is absolutely unprecedented in at least two ways—first she is a woman, and in all of Judah’s history there has never been a female monarch; and second she is not a descendant of David, and there has never sat on Judah’s throne anyone other than a descendant of David, that venerable ancestor-king, to whom God had promised a perpetual dynasty.
In order to cement her claim to the throne, Athaliah and her allies go about finding and slaying every last one of the living male descendants of David. But the wife of the high priest in Jerusalem, a woman who is herself a descendant of David, succeeds in hiding her infant nephew Joash, saving him from Athaliah’s massacre. Time passes, and then when Joash reaches the age of seven, the high priest Jehoiada leads a revolt against Athaliah that is successful, and she is put to death. So the rescued boy Joash, who is the last living male descendant of David, becomes king. And so long as the high priest Jehoiada is alive, King Joash does that which is right in the sight of God.
But today’s First Lesson begins with the notice that Jehoaida has died, and it goes on to say that after Jehoiada is buried Joash abandons the ways of God and lapses into the corruption and arrogance of power.
In response, God sends some prophets to admonish the king and his courtiers, but the king and his retinue do not listen. So God chooses a special prophet, one named Zechariah, who is a son of that high priest Jehoiada, a son of the very man whose wife had protected Joash from death as an infant, a son of the very man who had led the revolt against Athaliah and had made Joash king.
But over time, as I said, power has corrupted Joash and has made him arrogant, so when the prophet Zechariah seeks to speak God’s truth to him, Joash does not listen. Instead, he turns Zechariah over to his courtiers so that the prophet can be stoned to death right then and there, in the very courtyard of God’s own temple. So this prophet, this spokesperson for God’s truth, is put to death for daring to challenge the king’s misuse of power. And that is the story of Zechariah!
The words of Jesus in Luke 11:50, are the same words of a dying Zechariah, who said, “May the Lord see what they (the murderers) are doing and hold them accountable”. From the prophet who lived a thousand years before Christ to the word that we read today, the message is a consistent one, that those who murder God’s messengers will be punished by Him.
The last thing that I would like to say about this passage is that, it is normal for a man who is about to be murdered, to cry out for justice and judgement against those who are killing him. In the case of Jesus, He cried out for forgiveness from the Father for those who murdered Him, not retribution.
Again, we live our lives under the false impression that God is not paying attention to the details. Those that have, continue and will murder the messenger’s of God, think that they will get away with their transgressions because there is an absence of immediate Godly judgement immediately following the sinful deed.
In the case of Abel, he was woefully unprepared for the murderous wrath coming from his brother. After all, I am sure that he trusted Cain and when he was invited to walk in the fields with his brother, he was delighted to go with him.
In my bible I have made a note that the name Cain means “Acquired” and Abel means “Breath”. In Genesis 4:1-12 gives an accounting of the death of Abel and how the blood of Abel cries out to God, from the ground. I think that we have to keep in mind that this is the very picture of a dysfunctional family of man, from the get go. God must have and I’m sure continues to wonder if we are worth the trouble to keep around.
I found a website that offers a pretty good sermon on the death of Zechariah in a historical framework. I highlighted a portion of the sermon here and if you would like to visit the website, the address is http://www.rutgerschurch.com/Sermons/sermon071303.html .
On Speaking God's Truth to Power
© by the Reverend Dr. Byron E. Shafer
A sermon preached at Rutgers Presbyterian Church
on July 13, 2003; the 15th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year B
Scripture Lessons: II Chronicles 24:17-22; Mark 6:14-29
In your imagination, travel with me back to the last half of the 9th century BCE, some 2,850 years ago, when God’s people of Israel were divided into two kingdoms, the southern nation of Judah and the northern nation of Israel.
When King Ahaziah of Judah is slain by followers of the new and insurgent dynasty up north, in Israel, Ahaziah’s mother, named Athaliah, seeks to succeed her deceased son and to assume the throne of Judah herself. Her move is absolutely unprecedented in at least two ways—first she is a woman, and in all of Judah’s history there has never been a female monarch; and second she is not a descendant of David, and there has never sat on Judah’s throne anyone other than a descendant of David, that venerable ancestor-king, to whom God had promised a perpetual dynasty.
In order to cement her claim to the throne, Athaliah and her allies go about finding and slaying every last one of the living male descendants of David. But the wife of the high priest in Jerusalem, a woman who is herself a descendant of David, succeeds in hiding her infant nephew Joash, saving him from Athaliah’s massacre. Time passes, and then when Joash reaches the age of seven, the high priest Jehoiada leads a revolt against Athaliah that is successful, and she is put to death. So the rescued boy Joash, who is the last living male descendant of David, becomes king. And so long as the high priest Jehoiada is alive, King Joash does that which is right in the sight of God.
But today’s First Lesson begins with the notice that Jehoaida has died, and it goes on to say that after Jehoiada is buried Joash abandons the ways of God and lapses into the corruption and arrogance of power.
In response, God sends some prophets to admonish the king and his courtiers, but the king and his retinue do not listen. So God chooses a special prophet, one named Zechariah, who is a son of that high priest Jehoiada, a son of the very man whose wife had protected Joash from death as an infant, a son of the very man who had led the revolt against Athaliah and had made Joash king.
But over time, as I said, power has corrupted Joash and has made him arrogant, so when the prophet Zechariah seeks to speak God’s truth to him, Joash does not listen. Instead, he turns Zechariah over to his courtiers so that the prophet can be stoned to death right then and there, in the very courtyard of God’s own temple. So this prophet, this spokesperson for God’s truth, is put to death for daring to challenge the king’s misuse of power. And that is the story of Zechariah!
The words of Jesus in Luke 11:50, are the same words of a dying Zechariah, who said, “May the Lord see what they (the murderers) are doing and hold them accountable”. From the prophet who lived a thousand years before Christ to the word that we read today, the message is a consistent one, that those who murder God’s messengers will be punished by Him.
The last thing that I would like to say about this passage is that, it is normal for a man who is about to be murdered, to cry out for justice and judgement against those who are killing him. In the case of Jesus, He cried out for forgiveness from the Father for those who murdered Him, not retribution.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
God, Defined By Man
Modern translations of Luke 11:43 use the word “crush” when describing the effects of impossible religious demands placed on believers by clergy.
The church described in the book of Acts was not the same church that was organized at the Council of Nicaea formed 300 years after Christ’s death. You may go to the following website for a more complete description at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea.
The First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day I.znik in Turkey), convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325, was the first Ecumenical council[1] of the Christian Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops' (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted against Arius[2]).
Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the Resurrection, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.
The Council of Nicaea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[3] "It was the first occasion for the development of technical Christology."[3] Further, "Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."[3] A precedent was set for subsequent general councils to adopt creeds and canons
From what I remember of Constantine, he was the first Christian emperor of the Roman Empire. I have no reason to believe that he wasn’t sincere in his beliefs but like most politicians and leaders of men, decided to bring order to the Christian faith by instituting a management system through the clergy and finalizing religious facts and procedures so as to bring order to the faith. Somewhere in the reign of Constantine, he was confronted with a believer base that was made up of those converted from paganism and the new converts wanted to keep their idols and religious trinkets. Constantine probably thought about fighting this notion and practice but might have thought that it was harmless concession compared to other religious issues.
I heard a story one time about a man who built a house and the devil said, “I will let you keep the house in peace if you will allow me one nail, reserved for my exclusive use, in the middle of the living room.” The man felt that having one nail on the wall in the main part of the house was an easy trade off thereby avoiding a tedious battle with the prince of darkness over such a minor point. Years went by and the nail was left in place, as per the agreement, and forgotten as the generations that followed lived in the house, seemingly at peace.
Years later, a knock on the door was followed by the entry of old Lucifer himself. He moved with purpose as he hung the smelly remains of a dead animal on the nail and it took seconds for the inhabitants to abandon the home in a panic.
When man makes concessions in regard to the word of God and builds religious institutions that add religious rules, we deviate from what God tells us to do and we become part of the guilty who are admonished by Jesus in Luke 11: 46-49.
To close out this thought regarding these verses, I would like to share this incident that happened in my life. When I was in (Catholic) high school, a fellow student drowned while surfing at Huntington Beach on a Sunday. When we arrived at school on Monday, the news of the tragedy circulated along with shared belief that, because he was surfing and obviously missed church, his soul was probably lost and he probably did not go to heaven.
Now, I’m sure that someone in the church came up with a rule like that so as to pressure people to attend mass on Sunday, certainly a worthy goal. The problem is that God didn’t make a law like that, man did. As a result, I (and I am sure others) made a decision as a teenager, that if God would send me to hell for missing church on Sunday, then I wasn’t interested in knowing any more about Him. In my mind, that God was unreasonable and petty and He could go His way and I would go mine. For thirty years after that, I stayed faithful in my belief that I refused to serve any God who existed only to crush me and impose impossible laws upon me.
The church described in the book of Acts was not the same church that was organized at the Council of Nicaea formed 300 years after Christ’s death. You may go to the following website for a more complete description at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea.
The First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day I.znik in Turkey), convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325, was the first Ecumenical council[1] of the Christian Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops' (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted against Arius[2]).
Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the Resurrection, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.
The Council of Nicaea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[3] "It was the first occasion for the development of technical Christology."[3] Further, "Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."[3] A precedent was set for subsequent general councils to adopt creeds and canons
From what I remember of Constantine, he was the first Christian emperor of the Roman Empire. I have no reason to believe that he wasn’t sincere in his beliefs but like most politicians and leaders of men, decided to bring order to the Christian faith by instituting a management system through the clergy and finalizing religious facts and procedures so as to bring order to the faith. Somewhere in the reign of Constantine, he was confronted with a believer base that was made up of those converted from paganism and the new converts wanted to keep their idols and religious trinkets. Constantine probably thought about fighting this notion and practice but might have thought that it was harmless concession compared to other religious issues.
I heard a story one time about a man who built a house and the devil said, “I will let you keep the house in peace if you will allow me one nail, reserved for my exclusive use, in the middle of the living room.” The man felt that having one nail on the wall in the main part of the house was an easy trade off thereby avoiding a tedious battle with the prince of darkness over such a minor point. Years went by and the nail was left in place, as per the agreement, and forgotten as the generations that followed lived in the house, seemingly at peace.
Years later, a knock on the door was followed by the entry of old Lucifer himself. He moved with purpose as he hung the smelly remains of a dead animal on the nail and it took seconds for the inhabitants to abandon the home in a panic.
When man makes concessions in regard to the word of God and builds religious institutions that add religious rules, we deviate from what God tells us to do and we become part of the guilty who are admonished by Jesus in Luke 11: 46-49.
To close out this thought regarding these verses, I would like to share this incident that happened in my life. When I was in (Catholic) high school, a fellow student drowned while surfing at Huntington Beach on a Sunday. When we arrived at school on Monday, the news of the tragedy circulated along with shared belief that, because he was surfing and obviously missed church, his soul was probably lost and he probably did not go to heaven.
Now, I’m sure that someone in the church came up with a rule like that so as to pressure people to attend mass on Sunday, certainly a worthy goal. The problem is that God didn’t make a law like that, man did. As a result, I (and I am sure others) made a decision as a teenager, that if God would send me to hell for missing church on Sunday, then I wasn’t interested in knowing any more about Him. In my mind, that God was unreasonable and petty and He could go His way and I would go mine. For thirty years after that, I stayed faithful in my belief that I refused to serve any God who existed only to crush me and impose impossible laws upon me.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
What Is A Church ?
When we think of the definition of a church, in this country we think in terms of a steeple, maybe a cross or crucifix, wearing your “Sunday best” and going out to eat after the service. We “give” God an hour or two, listen to a sermon that is timed to meet the attention span of the intended audience and go out into the world at best marginally affected by God’s word through this homogenized religious encounter.
We allow the priest, pastor or other “official” in the church to do the heavy religious lifting in regards to understanding God’s word and interpreting it for us. We can then choose to operate in a clueless state that defies judgement because of our total lack of personal insight and knowledge.
Paul tells us in first Corinthians, chapter 12, a definition of what the church is supposed to be, is defined in the old King James:
12 ¶ For as the body is one, and hath many members and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. Rom. 12.4, 5
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 ¶ For the body is not one member, but many.
In Luke 11:43, Jesus admonishes the religious leaders of the time, as He points out the perks of being a religious leader. What was true then, is true today. The religious phonies of our day walk through the marketplace on television or radio, have the suffix of “reverend”, “bishop” or a variety of other salutations installed so as to give the illusion of holiness. They fill our air waves pontificating the word of the Lord and run their ministries through coercion, lies and untruths. In my life time I have watched “reverends” shake down corporations, participate in sinful human affairs, falsely accuse people of imaginary crimes, sell prayer towels and “anointed” diet plans, speak hatefully from the pulpit and lead hundreds to their death in the jungles of Africa.
After being insulted by the words of Jesus, the religious leaders should have been prepared to be peppered further. Starting in verse 46, Jesus went on to say that religious leaders who burden their flock with impossible religious, moral and monetary demands and never lift a finger to do anything to help people, really make Him mad. The fact that they call upon the memories of the faithful saints of the past so as to promote their ministry but in fact represent the exact opposite of these holy people, really seems to fire God up.
In September of 2000, a debate entitled, "Does Organized Religion Hold Answers to the Problems of the 21st Century?" took place between Alan Keyes and Alan Dershowitz at Franklin and Marshall College. Mr. Keyes is a well known political conservative took the position of defending organized religion against the famed attorney, Mr. Dershowitz. In this lively debate, which you can read and hear it in its entirety at Mr. Keyes website, located on the web at http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=147, Keyes chose to debate the existence of God and His value in society, based on premise that organized religion held the answers that modern man wanted to know.
I remember watching this debate on public television and while I thought Alan Keyes did a very good job making his points, Dershowitz was a worthy adversary. The fact that the location of this debate was a college that was founded by four German ministers who received a monetary grant from Benjamin Franklin to get the ball rolling, and would probably be considered a modern day bastion of liberal thinking, it would be fair to say that Mr. Keyes faced a “stacked deck” at best. I felt that as I watched Mr. Keyes lay out his argument that he would have been better off to have stuck to the words of Jesus and not the frailties and failures of an all too human church. Dershowitz picked the flawed history of organized religion apart pointing out all of its shortcomings and acknowledging any of its human accomplishments. Dershowitz, who as far as I can tell, rejects God and religion, while failing to offer any alternative other than randomness. Like I said, Keyes did his best but the flawed character of the human church was and is too difficult to defend.
We allow the priest, pastor or other “official” in the church to do the heavy religious lifting in regards to understanding God’s word and interpreting it for us. We can then choose to operate in a clueless state that defies judgement because of our total lack of personal insight and knowledge.
Paul tells us in first Corinthians, chapter 12, a definition of what the church is supposed to be, is defined in the old King James:
12 ¶ For as the body is one, and hath many members and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. Rom. 12.4, 5
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 ¶ For the body is not one member, but many.
In Luke 11:43, Jesus admonishes the religious leaders of the time, as He points out the perks of being a religious leader. What was true then, is true today. The religious phonies of our day walk through the marketplace on television or radio, have the suffix of “reverend”, “bishop” or a variety of other salutations installed so as to give the illusion of holiness. They fill our air waves pontificating the word of the Lord and run their ministries through coercion, lies and untruths. In my life time I have watched “reverends” shake down corporations, participate in sinful human affairs, falsely accuse people of imaginary crimes, sell prayer towels and “anointed” diet plans, speak hatefully from the pulpit and lead hundreds to their death in the jungles of Africa.
After being insulted by the words of Jesus, the religious leaders should have been prepared to be peppered further. Starting in verse 46, Jesus went on to say that religious leaders who burden their flock with impossible religious, moral and monetary demands and never lift a finger to do anything to help people, really make Him mad. The fact that they call upon the memories of the faithful saints of the past so as to promote their ministry but in fact represent the exact opposite of these holy people, really seems to fire God up.
In September of 2000, a debate entitled, "Does Organized Religion Hold Answers to the Problems of the 21st Century?" took place between Alan Keyes and Alan Dershowitz at Franklin and Marshall College. Mr. Keyes is a well known political conservative took the position of defending organized religion against the famed attorney, Mr. Dershowitz. In this lively debate, which you can read and hear it in its entirety at Mr. Keyes website, located on the web at http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=147, Keyes chose to debate the existence of God and His value in society, based on premise that organized religion held the answers that modern man wanted to know.
I remember watching this debate on public television and while I thought Alan Keyes did a very good job making his points, Dershowitz was a worthy adversary. The fact that the location of this debate was a college that was founded by four German ministers who received a monetary grant from Benjamin Franklin to get the ball rolling, and would probably be considered a modern day bastion of liberal thinking, it would be fair to say that Mr. Keyes faced a “stacked deck” at best. I felt that as I watched Mr. Keyes lay out his argument that he would have been better off to have stuck to the words of Jesus and not the frailties and failures of an all too human church. Dershowitz picked the flawed history of organized religion apart pointing out all of its shortcomings and acknowledging any of its human accomplishments. Dershowitz, who as far as I can tell, rejects God and religion, while failing to offer any alternative other than randomness. Like I said, Keyes did his best but the flawed character of the human church was and is too difficult to defend.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Moving on in Luke, chapter 12 verse 42, Jesus admonishes the religious leaders for their strictness in obeying the law down to it’s tiniest detail, in this case tithing. He tells them that they should continue to tithe but that just because they are following a good law of God that does not allow them to forget the other teachings of God. God tells us that we must not forget the essentials of love and justice. To forget these foundational aspects of God’s plan is inexcusable and throwing money God’s way will not divert His attention.
In the American church, there is an active debate over tithing. On one hand, there are those who say that we are not bound by the old testament law of giving 10% of our income to God. Others, myself included, don’t feel bound to any law regarding giving back to God both my time and my money. My wife and I tithe on our income, we tithe our time in various ministries in our church and we invest in the kingdom of God by giving personal financial support to several people who need help and to a small orphanage in Uganda.
We do this, not to be in compliance with a hard fast law of God, but instead to develop a generous heart toward God and His church. Tithing will not get me a better seat in heaven but it will and has opened our hearts for God, while on this earth. This is saying a lot when you consider that I swore long ago that I would never give a preacher my hard earned money because they would spend it recklessly. The truth is that, they may, but it is not my problem because I give the money to God, not to man.
If you will visit the following website that has a great deal of information regarding tithing at
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=296, you will be able to understand the giving heart of the American church.
(Ventura, CA) While theologians debate whether or not the practice of tithing - donating ten percent (or more) of one's income to churches and charitable groups - is a biblical responsibility of Christians, Americans have pretty much made up their minds on the subject. Their views are discernible through their behavior. The giving patterns of Americans are described in new research released by The Barna Group, based on an annual tracking survey conducted by the firm regarding religious behaviors and beliefs. The results of the new research can be compared with outcomes from prior years to follow the trend line.
Tithing in 2007
Whether they believe in the principle of tithing or not, few Americans give away that much money. In 2007, the research revealed that just 5% of adults tithed.
Not surprisingly, some population groups were more likely than others to have given away at least ten percent of their income. Among the most generous segments were evangelicals (24% of whom tithed); conservatives (12%); people who had prayed, read the Bible and attended a church service during the past week (12%); charismatic or Pentecostal Christians (11%); and registered Republicans (10%).
Several groups also stood out as highly unlikely to tithe: people under the age of 25, atheists and agnostics, single adults who have never been married, liberals, and downscale adults. One percent or less of the people in each of those segments tithed in 2007.
Among all born again adults, 9% contributed one-tenth or more of their income. The study also showed that Protestants were four times as likely to tithe as were Catholics (8% versus 2%, respectively).
Tithing Since 2000
The percentage of adults who tithe has stayed constant since the turn of the decade, falling in the 5% to 7% range. The Barna tracking reported that the proportion of adults who tithed was 7% in 2006 and 2005; 5% in 2004 and 2003; 6% in 2002; and 5% in 2001.
Giving to Places of Worship and Other Non-Profits
In 2007, 84% of all adults donated some money to churches or non-profit organizations. That figure has also remained consistent in recent years.
The median amount of money donated during 2007 was $400; the mean amount was $1308. Those averages are higher than was revealed earlier in this decade, but represent a decline from the previous year. (The mean sum of donations per person in 2006 was $1348.)
The Barna study pointed out that one-third of all adults (34%) gave away $1000 or more during 2007. Nearly one-fifth (18%) had donated $100 or less.
Evangelicals Christians distinguished themselves in their generosity. More than four out of five (83%) gave at least $1000 to churches and non-profit entities during 2007, far surpassing the levels reached by any other population segment studied.
Almost two-thirds of the public (64%) donated some money to a church, synagogue or other place of worship. The median amount donated to those religious centers was $101; the mean amount was $883. Those figures were up slightly from the previous year.
In all, one-quarter of the people who gave any money to religious centers (25%) donated at least $1000. A whopping 96% of evangelicals gave money to a church in 2007; 81% of them donated at least $1000.
Christians Give the Most
Christians tend to be the most generous group of donors. An examination of the three dominant subgroups within the Christian community showed that evangelicals, the 7% of the population who are most committed to the Christian faith, donated a mean of $4260 to all non-profit entities in 2007. Non-evangelical born again Christians, who represent another 37% of the public, donated a mean of $1581. The other 42% of the Christian population, who are aligned with a Christian church but are not born again, donated a mean of $865. Overall, the three segments of the Christian community averaged donations of $1426.
The Christian giving was divided between Protestants (mean of $1705) and Catholics ($984).
In contrast, Americans associated with non-Christian faiths gave away a mean of $905 during 2007. Atheists and agnostics provided an average of $467 to all non-profit organizations.
Born Again Giving Changes
The aggregate born again community (i.e., evangelicals as well as non-evangelical born again adults) donated a mean of $1971 to all non-profits and churches. That is the highest level reached by the born again population this decade. However, several giving patterns raised red flags for churches.
The percentage of born again adults who gave any money to churches dropped to its lowest level this decade (76%). In addition, the money donated by born agains to churches as a proportion of all of the money born agains gave away has also dropped precipitously. During the first five years of the decade, an average of 84 cents out of every dollar donated by born again adults went to churches. In the past three years, though, the proportion has declined to just 76 cents out of every donated dollar.
Interpreting the Shift
George Barna put the shift in born again giving into perspective.
"Born again adults remain the most generous givers in a country acknowledged to be the most generous on the planet," said the veteran researcher. "But their donation decisions must be seen in the larger context of the changes occurring in a wide range of religious behaviors. With millions of people shifting their allegiance to different forms of church experience, and a more participatory society altering how people interact and serve others, many Christians are now giving their money to different types of organizations instead of a church. They attend conventional churches less often. They are expanding their circle of Christian relationships beyond local church boundaries. And they are investing greater amounts of their time and money in service organizations that are not connected with a conventional church. That doesn’t make such giving inappropriate or less significant, it’s just a different way of addressing social needs."
"The choices being made by born again donors have huge implications for the non-profit sector. Realize that a majority of the money donated by individuals in the U.S. comes from the born again constituency," Barna pointed out. "If this transition in the perceptions and giving behavior of born again adults continues to accelerate, the service functions of conventional churches will be redefined within the next eight to ten years, and conventional churches will have to adopt new ways of assisting people in need."
In the American church, there is an active debate over tithing. On one hand, there are those who say that we are not bound by the old testament law of giving 10% of our income to God. Others, myself included, don’t feel bound to any law regarding giving back to God both my time and my money. My wife and I tithe on our income, we tithe our time in various ministries in our church and we invest in the kingdom of God by giving personal financial support to several people who need help and to a small orphanage in Uganda.
We do this, not to be in compliance with a hard fast law of God, but instead to develop a generous heart toward God and His church. Tithing will not get me a better seat in heaven but it will and has opened our hearts for God, while on this earth. This is saying a lot when you consider that I swore long ago that I would never give a preacher my hard earned money because they would spend it recklessly. The truth is that, they may, but it is not my problem because I give the money to God, not to man.
If you will visit the following website that has a great deal of information regarding tithing at
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=296, you will be able to understand the giving heart of the American church.
(Ventura, CA) While theologians debate whether or not the practice of tithing - donating ten percent (or more) of one's income to churches and charitable groups - is a biblical responsibility of Christians, Americans have pretty much made up their minds on the subject. Their views are discernible through their behavior. The giving patterns of Americans are described in new research released by The Barna Group, based on an annual tracking survey conducted by the firm regarding religious behaviors and beliefs. The results of the new research can be compared with outcomes from prior years to follow the trend line.
Tithing in 2007
Whether they believe in the principle of tithing or not, few Americans give away that much money. In 2007, the research revealed that just 5% of adults tithed.
Not surprisingly, some population groups were more likely than others to have given away at least ten percent of their income. Among the most generous segments were evangelicals (24% of whom tithed); conservatives (12%); people who had prayed, read the Bible and attended a church service during the past week (12%); charismatic or Pentecostal Christians (11%); and registered Republicans (10%).
Several groups also stood out as highly unlikely to tithe: people under the age of 25, atheists and agnostics, single adults who have never been married, liberals, and downscale adults. One percent or less of the people in each of those segments tithed in 2007.
Among all born again adults, 9% contributed one-tenth or more of their income. The study also showed that Protestants were four times as likely to tithe as were Catholics (8% versus 2%, respectively).
Tithing Since 2000
The percentage of adults who tithe has stayed constant since the turn of the decade, falling in the 5% to 7% range. The Barna tracking reported that the proportion of adults who tithed was 7% in 2006 and 2005; 5% in 2004 and 2003; 6% in 2002; and 5% in 2001.
Giving to Places of Worship and Other Non-Profits
In 2007, 84% of all adults donated some money to churches or non-profit organizations. That figure has also remained consistent in recent years.
The median amount of money donated during 2007 was $400; the mean amount was $1308. Those averages are higher than was revealed earlier in this decade, but represent a decline from the previous year. (The mean sum of donations per person in 2006 was $1348.)
The Barna study pointed out that one-third of all adults (34%) gave away $1000 or more during 2007. Nearly one-fifth (18%) had donated $100 or less.
Evangelicals Christians distinguished themselves in their generosity. More than four out of five (83%) gave at least $1000 to churches and non-profit entities during 2007, far surpassing the levels reached by any other population segment studied.
Almost two-thirds of the public (64%) donated some money to a church, synagogue or other place of worship. The median amount donated to those religious centers was $101; the mean amount was $883. Those figures were up slightly from the previous year.
In all, one-quarter of the people who gave any money to religious centers (25%) donated at least $1000. A whopping 96% of evangelicals gave money to a church in 2007; 81% of them donated at least $1000.
Christians Give the Most
Christians tend to be the most generous group of donors. An examination of the three dominant subgroups within the Christian community showed that evangelicals, the 7% of the population who are most committed to the Christian faith, donated a mean of $4260 to all non-profit entities in 2007. Non-evangelical born again Christians, who represent another 37% of the public, donated a mean of $1581. The other 42% of the Christian population, who are aligned with a Christian church but are not born again, donated a mean of $865. Overall, the three segments of the Christian community averaged donations of $1426.
The Christian giving was divided between Protestants (mean of $1705) and Catholics ($984).
In contrast, Americans associated with non-Christian faiths gave away a mean of $905 during 2007. Atheists and agnostics provided an average of $467 to all non-profit organizations.
Born Again Giving Changes
The aggregate born again community (i.e., evangelicals as well as non-evangelical born again adults) donated a mean of $1971 to all non-profits and churches. That is the highest level reached by the born again population this decade. However, several giving patterns raised red flags for churches.
The percentage of born again adults who gave any money to churches dropped to its lowest level this decade (76%). In addition, the money donated by born agains to churches as a proportion of all of the money born agains gave away has also dropped precipitously. During the first five years of the decade, an average of 84 cents out of every dollar donated by born again adults went to churches. In the past three years, though, the proportion has declined to just 76 cents out of every donated dollar.
Interpreting the Shift
George Barna put the shift in born again giving into perspective.
"Born again adults remain the most generous givers in a country acknowledged to be the most generous on the planet," said the veteran researcher. "But their donation decisions must be seen in the larger context of the changes occurring in a wide range of religious behaviors. With millions of people shifting their allegiance to different forms of church experience, and a more participatory society altering how people interact and serve others, many Christians are now giving their money to different types of organizations instead of a church. They attend conventional churches less often. They are expanding their circle of Christian relationships beyond local church boundaries. And they are investing greater amounts of their time and money in service organizations that are not connected with a conventional church. That doesn’t make such giving inappropriate or less significant, it’s just a different way of addressing social needs."
"The choices being made by born again donors have huge implications for the non-profit sector. Realize that a majority of the money donated by individuals in the U.S. comes from the born again constituency," Barna pointed out. "If this transition in the perceptions and giving behavior of born again adults continues to accelerate, the service functions of conventional churches will be redefined within the next eight to ten years, and conventional churches will have to adopt new ways of assisting people in need."
Friday, August 1, 2008
Cleanliness is next to Godliness
As we move on in chapter eleven, verse 37, Luke tells us how Jesus reacted to the judgmental religious leaders of His day. In response to a dinner invitation, Jesus entered the home of a Pharisee and immediately sat down to eat without taking part in the Jewish custom of ceremonial washing.
Let’s talk about a couple of things that relate to this passage. First of all, who were the Pharisees and what did they believe? The answer to this question is quite detailed and can be read in its entirety at the following web page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees.
The word Pharisee comes from the Hebrew word, meaning “separated”. The Pharisee was, depending on the time, a political party, a social movement and a school of thought among Jews. They were a strict, law abiding religious group who had strong ties to the more common member of society, in contrast with Sadducees who were associated with the ruling classes. The Pharisees believed in specific interpretations of the Bible and how to apply the Torah to Jewish life and unlike the Sadducees, believed in life after death.
Secondly, the hand washing ritual had superstitious roots and was related to normal hygiene.
The following information came from Rabbi Lerner who writes for About.com at the following link, http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_wash_hands.htm
The hand washing ritual was, and is done for a variety of reasons. For instance, there is the blesssing (bracha) "Netilat yadayim" in the morning, some suggest in commentaries on the Gemara, has an origin in superstition. "Mazikin" - demon spirits - dance on the body while it sleeps and when one stirs in the morning, they run to the fingertips, pausing there until certain whether one is or is not going to awaken. As they pause, we wash them away, spiritually preparing the body for the morning prayers.
Hygiene, on the other hand, shows respect for the body as a sanctuary for the soul. In Judaism there is an emphasis on regular meals, diet, dental care and aspects of personal bodily cleanliness. However, since these occasions are for hygiene rather than preceding religious acts, no blessing is recited. (See Code of Jewish Law, OH chapter 4)
This is interesting to me because I always read this act of Jesus not washing His hands to be a rejection of the law when instead, it is possible that He just washed His hands before arriving and felt they were clean enough to eat with. It is evident that His hosts were hypersensitive and waiting to criticize anything that He did as against the Jewish custom or law.
In response to their criticism He explained that even though they washed the outside of their bodies that the inside was filthy. Wow, talk about breaking the ice at a dinner party! Jesus then went after his critics with a warning that the following of traditions of men and religious legalism, instead of having God in our hearts, will not save us or our souls.
Let’s talk about a couple of things that relate to this passage. First of all, who were the Pharisees and what did they believe? The answer to this question is quite detailed and can be read in its entirety at the following web page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees.
The word Pharisee comes from the Hebrew word, meaning “separated”. The Pharisee was, depending on the time, a political party, a social movement and a school of thought among Jews. They were a strict, law abiding religious group who had strong ties to the more common member of society, in contrast with Sadducees who were associated with the ruling classes. The Pharisees believed in specific interpretations of the Bible and how to apply the Torah to Jewish life and unlike the Sadducees, believed in life after death.
Secondly, the hand washing ritual had superstitious roots and was related to normal hygiene.
The following information came from Rabbi Lerner who writes for About.com at the following link, http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_wash_hands.htm
The hand washing ritual was, and is done for a variety of reasons. For instance, there is the blesssing (bracha) "Netilat yadayim" in the morning, some suggest in commentaries on the Gemara, has an origin in superstition. "Mazikin" - demon spirits - dance on the body while it sleeps and when one stirs in the morning, they run to the fingertips, pausing there until certain whether one is or is not going to awaken. As they pause, we wash them away, spiritually preparing the body for the morning prayers.
Hygiene, on the other hand, shows respect for the body as a sanctuary for the soul. In Judaism there is an emphasis on regular meals, diet, dental care and aspects of personal bodily cleanliness. However, since these occasions are for hygiene rather than preceding religious acts, no blessing is recited. (See Code of Jewish Law, OH chapter 4)
This is interesting to me because I always read this act of Jesus not washing His hands to be a rejection of the law when instead, it is possible that He just washed His hands before arriving and felt they were clean enough to eat with. It is evident that His hosts were hypersensitive and waiting to criticize anything that He did as against the Jewish custom or law.
In response to their criticism He explained that even though they washed the outside of their bodies that the inside was filthy. Wow, talk about breaking the ice at a dinner party! Jesus then went after his critics with a warning that the following of traditions of men and religious legalism, instead of having God in our hearts, will not save us or our souls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)