My last correspondence on the subject of ineffective prayer.

This is my last correspondence on the subject.

In my continuing search for a reason why we continue to claim to believe prayer works, while not receiving responses to our prayers, especially for the sick I have looked to "Praying: Finding Our Way Through Duty to Delight" by J. I. Packer & Carolyn Nystrom.

 

They write:

 

For the church at Ephesus, Paul prays: Ephesians 3:16-19. For the church at Colossae he prays: Colossians 1:9-12, for the church at Philippi he prays: Philippians 1:9-11 and for the church at Thessalonica he prays: 1 Thessalonians 5:23. For the sake of brevity I do not embed the verses.

 

When Christians echo and elaborate these thoughts in their prayers for each other, they are therefore entitled to expect their prayers to be answered.

 

Beyond this, however, questions still arise. When we pray for individuals who in one way or another are close to us---family, friends, mentors, leaders, Christian workers at home and abroad whom we support, and so on--- we become specific in asking God to do certain particular things to meet their particular needs. Often that is exactly what the people concerned have asked us to do. But since many of the details of God's plan are unknown to us, when we have told God what we would most like to see happen, some degree of uncertainty must remain as to whether or not we prayed according to his will. What to do then? Two things, first, we should lay before God, as part of our prayer, the reasons why we think that what we ask for is the best thing.  Second, we should tell God that if he wills something different we know it will be better, and it is that (rather than the best we could think of) that we really want him to do.

 

The puritans used to speak rather grandly about using argument in prayer. By this they did not mean pressing God to fall in line with our own desires ("My will be done"); what they meant was telling God why what we have asked for seems to us to be for the best, in light of what we know God's own goals to be (generating good, saving sinners, extending the kingdom and enriching the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and glorifying himself by so revealing his transcendent triune glory that his rational creatures give him glory by their thanks and praise). Here, now, is a sample Puritan, Stephen Charnock, making the point in his own way:

 

Our praying . . . should consist of arguments for God's glory and our happiness; not that arguments move God to do that which he is not willing of himself to do for us . . . as though the infinitely wise God needed information, or the infinitely loving God needed persuasion, but it is for strengthening our faith in him. All the prayers in the Scripture you will find to be reasoning with God, not a multitude of words heaped together; and the design of the promises is to furnish us with a strength or reason in this case: Daniel 9:16, "Now according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thy anger and thy fury be turned away from the city Jerusalem." He [Daniel] pleads God's righteousness in his promise of the set time of deliverance; after he had settled his heart in a full belief of the promised of deliverance, he shows God's own words to him. The arguments [in this and all biblical prayers] you will find drawn from the covenant in general, or some promise in particular, or some attribute of God, or the glory of God.

 

These authors expect prayers to be answered, or at least prayers prayed rightly to be answered as James cautions. Why don't we? And why aren't we curious?

We pray nothing happens. We offer the invitation nothing happens. And, no one wonders why. If we can ever understand the why we just might be closer to understanding why the church Jesus established on Pentecost is shrinking.

No reply is necessary or expected. Neither of us knows what others are thinking.

 

Thanks, John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN

Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com  
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

HOBBITS are Tolkien Minorities

Question for the Future. . .

Jim Collins has authored several books including "Good to Great, How the Mighty Fall, and Good to Great and the Social Sectors. The first two are about businesses the third one is about volunteer organizations including churches and why business thinking is not the answer.

One of his points of differences is in business; money is both an input (a resource for achieving greatness) and an output (a measure of greatness). In the social sectors money is only an input, and not a measure of greatness.

Collins writes that a great organization is one that delivers superior performance and makes a distinctive impact over a long period of time. For a business, financial returns are a perfectly legitimate measure of performance. For a social sector organization, performance must be assessed relative to mission, not financial returns. In the social sectors, the critical question is not, "How much money do we make per dollar of invested capital?" but "How effectively do we deliver on our mission and make a distinctive impact, relative to our resources?"

He asks the question "What if your outputs are inherently not measurable?"

He uses as an example when Tom Morris became executive director of The Cleveland Orchestra in 1987. Prior to taking the position Morris asked "What do you want me to do if I come here?" Their answer: make an already great orchestra even greater, defined by artistic excellence. Artistic excellence cannot be measured precisely but that does not change the fact that artistic excellence is the primary definition of performance for The Cleveland Orchestra.

To throw our hands up and say, "But we cannot measure performance in the social sectors the way you can in business" is simply lack of discipline. All indicators are flawed whether qualitative or quantitative. What matters is not finding the perfect indicator but settling upon a consistent and intelligent method of assessing output results, and then tracking your trajectory with rigor. What do you mean by great performance? Have you established a baseline? Are you improving? If not, why not? How can you improve even faster toward your goals?

Any journey from good to great requires relentlessly adhering to rigorous tracking your trajectory on the output variables, and then driving to even higher levels of performance and impact. No matter how much you have achieved, you will always be merely good relative to what you can become. Greatness is an inherently dynamic process, not an end point. The moment you think of yourself as great, your slide to mediocrity will have already begun.

If you ask typical church members why their church exists, you'll get a wide variety of answers. Most churches do not have a clear consensus on this issue. Win Arn, a consultant to churches surveyed members of nearly a thousand churches asking the question "Why does the church exist?" the results? Of the church members surveyed, 89 percent said "The church's purpose is to take care of my family's and my needs." For many, the role of the (preacher) is simply to keep the sheep who are already in the "pen" happy and not lose too many of them. Only 11 percent said, "The purpose of the church is to win the world for Jesus Christ."

Then, the (preachers) of the same churches were asked why the church exists. Amazingly the results were exactly opposite. Of the (preachers) surveyed, 90 percent said the purpose of the church was to win the world and 10 percent said it was to care for the needs of the members. Is it any wonder why we have conflict, confusion, and stagnation in many churches today? If the (preacher) and congregation can't even agree on why the church exists, conflict and disagreement on everything else is inevitable.

Unless the driving force behind a church is biblical, the health and growth of the church will never be what God intended.

You are probably asking what does this have to do with Great Smoky Mountains Church of Christ. As we complete the construction of a new building and look to the future, why does Great Smoky Mountains Church of Christ exist? I suggest our answers should be found in the Bible and I do not find anywhere in the bible where allowing others to assemble with us is a goal of the New Testament church. Are we a good congregation of the church established on Pentecost? Are we a great congregation? Are we a relevant congregation? Are we having an impact? Is the Lord's church universal better because we exist? Are we doing what Jesus wants us to do? How do you know? Why do you know?

Two Lines to Serve God

Paul wrote: Romans 2:12-16 "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law; for it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."

In the beginning, God had a special relationship with His creation where He spoke directly to His creation. Eventually he selected Abraham through his son Isaac to begin the people through which Messiah would come. At that time there were two lines. Abraham through Isaac was one everyone else, the other. Abraham through Isaac became who we refer to today as the Jews everyone else Gentiles.

The Law of Moses was intended specifically for the Jews; to guide them to the point in time, the fullness of time, when Messiah would come. Everyone else, those we call Gentiles did not have the law but when by nature they did what the law required became a law unto themselves allowing them to be acceptable to God and saved as were obedient Jews.

On Pentecost, Peter announced the Good News of Jesus to the Jews, requiring the Jews to come to Jesus. The Law of Moses was intended to provide a way for Messiah to be born. Messiah being born removed any necessity for the Jews to be treated special by God. But the Law was not fulfilled until Jesus died, arose, and ascended. Stopping at any time prior to Jesus' return to the Father would have meant no Messiah and mankind would have been left in their sin. Meanwhile the Gentiles continued as they were being acceptable to God when they did by nature things of the Law. Cornelius was among that number, as were others. In Acts chapter 10 we have the accounting how God opened the kingdom of God to Gentiles. "At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God." At this point the two lines, the descendants of Abraham through Isaac as well as the Gentiles were together in Jesus. Acts 10:1,2

Suggested Subject for a Small Group

Sometime it might be interesting to get a group together and discuss how Satan and the Holy Spirit both being spirits affect us who are physical beings. We seem to think we have Satan figured out but stumble when we come to the Holy Spirit. If we were to study and to think about him we just might come to the conclusion that we don't understand Satan as much as we think we do.

 

 

Thanks, John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN

Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com  
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

HOBBITS are Tolkien Minorities

Involvement - (Malcolm Gladwell, Tipping Point)

Some years ago two Princeton University psychologists, John Darley and Daniel Batson, decided to conduct a study inspired by the biblical story of the Good Samaritan.

Darley and Batson met with a group of seminarians, individually, and asked each one to prepare a short, extemporaneous talk on a given biblical theme, then walk over to a nearby building to present it. Along the way to the presentation, each student ran into a man slumped in an alley, head down, eyes closed, coughing and groaning. Darley and Batson introduced three variables into the experiment, to make its results more meaningful. First, before the experiment even started, they gave the students a questionnaire about why they had chose to study theology. Did they see religion as a means for personal and spiritual fulfillment? Or were they looking for a practical tool for finding meaning in everyday life? Then they varied the subject of the theme the students were asked to talk about. Some were asked to speak on the relevance of the professional clergy to the religious vocation. Others were given the parable of the Good Samaritan. Finally, the instructions given by the experimenters to each student varied as well. In some cases, as he sent the students on their way the experimenter would look at his watch and say, "Oh you're late. They were expecting you a few minutes ago. We'd better get moving." In other cases, he would say, "It will be a few minutes before they're ready for you, but you might as well head over now."

If you ask people to predict which seminarians played the Good Samaritan (and subsequent studies have done just this) their answers are highly consistent. They almost all say that the students who entered the ministry to help people and those reminded of the importance of compassion by having just read the parable of the Good Samaritan will be the most likely to stop. Most or us, I think, would agree with those conclusions. In fact, neither of those factors made any difference. "It is hard to think of a context in which norms concerning helping those in distress are more salient than for a person thinking about the Good Samaritan, and yet it did not significantly increase helping behavior," Darley and Batson concluded. "Indeed on several occasions, a seminary student going to give his talk on the parable of the Good Samaritan literally stepped over the victim as he hurried on his way." The only thing that really mattered was whether the student was in a rush. Of the group that was, 10 percent stopped to help. Of the group who knew they had a few minutes to spare, 63 percent stopped.

What this study is suggesting is that convictions of your heart and the actual contents of your thoughts are less important, in the end, in guiding your actions that the immediate context of your behavior. The words "Oh, you're late" had the effect of making someone who was ordinarily compassionate into someone who was indifferent to suffering---of turning someone, in that particular moment, into a different person.

Seek First the Kingdom of God AND His Righteousness

When we look at the world we find from other people's perspective even the poorest of us are rich.

We do not pay much attention to Jesus' teachings on a simple life because it goes against are interest in an affluent life-style. Those who take Jesus' teachings seriously are accused of legalism.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus spoke about food, drink and clothes. He told his listeners if they would seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, all those things would be added to them. If God believes that is enough who are we to disagree?

The central point of Jesus' teaching is to seek the kingdom of God and the righteousness of his kingdom first and everything necessary will come in its proper order. Everything hinges on maintaining the "first" things as first. Nothing must come before the kingdom of God, including the desire for a simple life-style.

Should I get a suitable job in order to exert a virtuous influence? No! We must first seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness.

Should I give away all my money to feed the poor? No! We must first seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness.

Should I go out and preach the gospel to the world that people are to seek God's kingdom? No! We must first seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness.

In a certain sense it is nothing we should do. It is nothing, become nothing before God, learn to keep silent; in this silence is the beginning, which is, first to seek God's kingdom.

Freedom from anxiety is one of the inward evidences of seeking first the kingdom of God. The inward reality involves a life of joyful unconcern for possessions. Neither the greedy nor the miserly know this freedom. It has nothing to do with the abundance of possessions or their lack. It is an inward spirit of trust. The sheer fact that a person is living without things is no guarantee that he or she is living in simplicity. Wealth does not bring freedom from anxiety.

I have been told the Japanese do not grasp the concept of just having something. They do not understand why anyone would want a off-road vehicle if we do not ever expect to go off-road. Items in their houses are functional. Our culture has convinced us that having food, drink and clothing is not enough and that separates us from what Jesus thought. Maybe we relate to the rich young ruler more than we will admit.

Prayer and Worship

The church has drifted far from the simplicity of worship of the Early Church. Did the Spirit inspire those first disciples to set a pattern of worship for all ages? Teaching of doctrine, fellowship around the Word, the breaking of bread, intercession these were influential in the lives of early Christians.  And their "togetherness" impacted the world around.

 

When prayers were offered, it is reasonable to assume that men and women participated. Among those who "continued steadfastly in prayer" in the upper room were women, including Jesus' mother.  Paul told Timothy the mark of a true widow is continuance in supplication and prayers. Women in the Corinthian Church prayed publicly as well as prophesied.

How Odd

In most areas of life when we are asked to do something we understand that eliminates everything else. We are asked to throw a ball we know we are not to throw a hammer or anything but a ball. When we are asked to go to the store to buy peanut butter we know we are not being asked to buy jelly or fish or anything but peanut butter.

 

For some reason in religion we do not accept that same reality. When the Bible says sing many want to play an instrument. When the Bible says immerse many want to sprinkle.

 

How odd. . . that only on religious subjects A equals B, but B does not equal A.

Ongoing Search for Reasons for Failed Prayers

When Jesus said, "whatever you ask in my name, that will I do" was he speaking to future generations or to his disciples? How about when he said "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."

 

Jesus did not make any allowances for failure. He said he would do anything asked in his name so the Father would be glorified. How do we account for all the failed requests made "in Jesus' name?"

 

Do we understand what it means to pray in the Name of Jesus? It certainly does not suggest the repetition of a phrase that has no more relationship to the prayer, than a label has to the package to which it is attached. It does not convert an unholy request to a worthy one. It does not open a door in heaven. Like praying for our food to nourish our bodies will not change a potato chip to a carrot.

 

"In His Name" means that the prayer must have His sanction or endorsement before God. "In Jesus' name" means the prayer is as one Jesus would pray.  Prayer offered "In Jesus' Name" or in his stead cannot fail Jesus promised, someone.

Dr R. A. Torrey said: "To pray in the Name of Jesus Christ is to recognize that we have no claims on God whatever, that God owes us nothing whatever, that we deserve nothing of our God; but believing what God Himself tells us about Jesus Christ's claim upon Him, we ask God for things on the ground of Jesus Christ's claim upon God."

As with any activity our lack of study leads to not knowing how to study, not being able to study. Do we know how to study? We need to understand what the author is saying. We must understand what the author means. Who is he speaking to? What do they hear him saying? To whom and under what conditions did Jesus promise? Did he leave himself a way out.   

 

Is it possible Jesus' promise has been misapplied all these years and we have added an empty phrase, the kind Jesus warns against?    

 

What Does It Mean to Pray "In His Name"?

What does it mean to pray in the Name of Jesus? It does not suggest the repetition of a phrase that has no more relationship to the prayer, as a label has to the package it is tied to. Loosely appended to a prayer it does not convert an unholy request to a worthy one. It does not open a door in heaven.

 

"In His Name" means that our prayers must have His sanction or endorsement before God. The use of the term implies that we are praying as Jesus would pray if he was in our place.  "In his name" signifies, In His nature, that is, according to all He is in Himself and all He has accomplished.

Prayer offered "In His Name" or in his stead cannot fail. Prayer offered otherwise will not be successful.

As we give Jesus control of our life, our prayers find the right of way in God's program.

To pray in the Name of Jesus Christ is to recognize that we have no claims on God whatever, that God owes us nothing whatever, that we deserve nothing of our God; but believing what God Himself tells us about Jesus Christ's claim upon Him, we ask God for things on the ground of Jesus Christ's claim upon God. Dr. R. A. Torrey

All we seek in prayer must be for the glory of Jesus. If our prayers depend on us they will never rise very high. All selfish or unworthy desires must be shunned. The spirit of any prayer must be For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.

For our prayers to be successful we must know how to pray in the Holy Spirit. He must pray in and through us. He helps our weakness in prayer and makes intercession to the will of God. We pray in the Spirit, through the merits of Christ, to the Father. To pray in the Spirit means to consciously place ourselves under the Holy Spirit's influence.

 

Six Motivations for Contributing

• Reading about the habits of highly effective churches I found that research among people who donate money to churches and other non-profit organizations has shown that there are six primary motivation that lead people to contribute to churches and charities. Fund-raising has become so competitive, that it is not good enough to satisfy just one of those motivations. Before a donor is likely to contribute funds to a church or charity at least three of the six motivations must be satisfied.
  
  Six Motivations for Contributing
  
  1. The desire to be part of a compelling cause;
  2. The desire to make a lasting difference in the world;
  3. The expectation of receiving a personal benefit from the work done by the organization;
  4. The existence of a significant relationship with people of influence within the organization or with a group of donors who support the organization;
  5. The desire to help meet an urgent need being addressed by the organization;
  6. The appeal of the organization’s efficiency in its operations.
  
  
  Highly effective churches do a good job of raising the money they need to implement their ministry plans, but they do not devote an unusual amount of energy or attention to fund-raising. They are effective in raising funds partly because they are aware of what motivates people to financially support a ministry and can effectively communicate how their church fulfills those donor expectations. Effective churches typically provide their congregations with ample evidence of the compelling cause that the church represents and the impact that the church is having upon people’s lives. The third and subsequent motivations that are specifically addressed by these churches vary considerably.
  
  Highly effective churches never assume that they can simply expect people to give to the church. Most people who attend a church provide financial assistance, but it is often quite limited---donations that amount to less than $10 a week among regular attenders and substantially less among sporadic attenders.
  
  In these churches the senior pastor is not the primary fund raiser. This is a strategic choice these churches have made. The underlying reason is their experience---and our research that confirms that experience---suggesting that productive fundraising and effective pastoring are like mixing oil and water. Fundraising in many instances cripples a minister’s ability to pastor because the people are never quite sure of the motivation of the pastor’s words or actions.
  
  A hallmark of highly effective churches is accountability. These churches have discovered ways to hold their people accountable to maintain generous giving, but without being overbearing or intrusive. Some of the ways in which they accomplish this include:
  
• Having the stewardship team held accountable for meeting its deadlines and reaching its goals;
• Holding each ministry, department and program within the church to its budget;
• Keeping the congregation informed about the financial condition of the church thr9ugh correspondence, handouts at church and public announcements, so that people have an accurate sense of the church’s financial condition;
• Having the stewardship representatives in the church each of who is a lay person typically responsible for interacting with a limited number of congregants regarding the finances of the church, stay in close contact with every person to whom they are assigned to answer special questions and to provide “soft” accountability for each person’s giving;
• Having meetings between attenders and a responsible leaders who has access to the giving records of the church body and can skillfully and sensitively address the lack of financial support shown by those attenders.
  
  Although talking to congregants about donations is a matter that raises great trepidation among most pastors, it is a non-issue to the leader/pastors of highly effective churches. One pastor remarked:
  
  Do I relish conversations with members about the fact that they don’t give? Actually, I do, because their failure to support us financially is simply indicative of deeper spiritual problems they have. Sometimes it’s a lack of understanding about biblical stewardship but sometimes I learn that they have personal financial needs that we can help them with through a gift, a loan or budgeting assistance. Sometimes they’re battling a spirit of selfishness. Often it’s simply their unwillingness to trust God or take Him at His word. (His people give nearly twice the per capita average).
  
  On the subject of stewardship the answer comes back to leadership. Casting an appropriate vision to motivate people to give and to live as effective stewards makes a huge difference. Focusing people on the big picture of Christian practice---accomplished in this case by expanding people’s view of stewardship beyond money management to embrace total life and resource management---is characteristic of leaders. The ultimate result of this strategic leadership emphasis is that churchgoers are more knowledgeable about heir faith, more obedient to God through the practice of holistic stewardship and the church is a more effective agent of transformation.
  
  Anyone associated with a group should be willing to help the group pay its expenses. That is reason enough to keep the members involved in the decision making.

Prayers v The Sick List

In my ongoing search for some explanation of why for the past forty years, in spite of all the corporate prayers for the sick my experience has been the only way people come off the prayer list is to die and that no one questions what we are doing. What did Jesus mean when he said:
 
John 14:13-14
Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
 
We have interpreted that to mean if we say the phrase: "In the name of Jesus" it overrides everything else, our attitude, our request, our intent, everything. God must answer in the affirmative because we said the magic words and Jesus put no qualification on it.
 
Much like a police officer saying, "Stop in the name of the law." The police officer has the authority to make that request because he is standing in the place of the law and speaking on behalf of it. To the degree that he speaks for the law, he can enforce the law and has authority. When he steps outside of the law, he has lost his authority even though he still says, "Stop in the name of the law."
 
In the prayers of the Bible we do not see a prayer that ends with the phrase "In Jesus' name. Amen." It is never done in the New Testament or in fact the Old Testament either.
 
 Jesus used his "miracles" to honor and glorify His Father not for his own purposes. How does responding affirmatively to our prayers for sick friends and family to be healed, for God to touch the heart of unbelievers; to give us safe travel honor and glorify the Father or Jesus? How does praying for those "for whom we have a duty to pray for" honor and glorify the Father or Jesus?
 
How do our corporate prayers compare to Jesus' instructions:
 
Matthew 6:6-13 
    (W)hen you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them. . .
 
If we ever get past the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity,possibly we can look into other subjects.

What Outsiders Think of Christianity, of Us

Have you considered that outsiders look at Christianity with the same scepticism with which Christians look at each other?

Research shows Christians have a increasingly negative reputation among young Americans. That Christians are best known for what we are against and are seen as judgmental, anti homosexual, and too political. That Christianity is no longer as Jesus intended it to be.

When asked to describe what Christianity is like, outsiders give these analogies:

• The Titanic---a ship about to sink but unaware of its fate
• A pack of domesticated cats that look like they are thinking deep thoughts but are just waiting for their next meal
• A hobby that diverts people's attention
• A powerful amplifier being undermined by poor wiring and weak speakers

Many commented that Christianity insulates people from thinking. One comment illustrates the image: "Christianity stifles curiosity. People become unwilling to face their doubts and questions. It makes people brain-dead." A majority of outsiders reject the idea that Christianity "makes sense" or is "relevant to their life."The perception is Christians are not thinkers. That Christians use special word and phrases no one else can understand.

In our assemblies we are isolated from the world. When visiting other congregations it is easy to see that activities are by rote memory. Without expression. Singing about joy,salvation, Jesus with blank expressions. With time a major concern. With prayers that instead of being specific the phrase "we pray for . . ." is what is being prayed for. The primary activity, the sermon which better not be too long.

When we visit congregations that are trying new things the first thing that comes to my mind is a list of congregations that would not like one or more of the activities.

Over the past few months ago I have made suggestions and suggested if anyone thought them worth considering mention something and the men could discuss one or more of them. Apparently none were considered worth talking about. When you understand the perceptions outsiders have of Christianity we seem to fit the mold. Correct me if I am wrong providing accommodations for visitors is not high on the list of activities and responsibilities of the church. Over the past months Al has produced sermons that my reaction was "good idea, now what." One of those sermons covered the tree Jesus called useless. In reality that tree was not useless. It was producing branches and leaves for bugs to eat and for birds to build their nests with and in. It was providing shade. It was converting CO2 to Oxygen. All valid and praiseworthy activities. Jesus was referring to the fact the tree was not fulfilling its primary purpose, producing figs.

Christians should be aware of how we are perceived by the World and seen by Jehovah God.

Righteous

Do you suppose the church universal is lacking men who are truly seeking the kingdom of God AND His righteousness?
Jesus told his followers not be anxious about what they would have to eat or drink or wear because the heavenly Father knew that that needed them and if they would seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness, those items would be provided. James said the prayer of a righteous man avails much. Could our problem be the lack of righteous men? Or am I taking the Bible too literally?

Just wondering. There has to be an explanation for our less than stellar results.

On the Subject of Prayer. . .

On the subject of prayer it seems that while those of the Church of Christ have or at least had men who spent much of their day in communication with God history shows there were many whom we do not consider Christian who spent just as many if not more hours each day praying to God, or thought they were. Interesting how they could think that while we, who do not equal them in their efforts, believe God was not listening to them.

Concerning corporate prayer one of the Charlie Brown cartoon scripts shows Charlie in the back yard shooting arrows into the fence. Wherever he shoots an arrow, he runs over and draws a target around where the arrow hit. Lucy walks over and asks him why he's doing this. His reply," This way I never miss." To often, this is how we approach prayer. We pray for those whom we have a duty to pray for. What does that mean? We "pray for Billy Bob." What does that mean? We pray for safety, from what?

Does it strike you has strange that the same person(s) who will not stand up in front of the people without taking time to organize their thoughts will stand up before the creator of everything with no time to prepare? Why is this? How about a group of Christians meeting to encourage each other to love and good works and to remember Jesus not talking to God first thing or more than once?

I'm thinking our corporate prayer is more for man than for God. We say we believe prayer is effective but why do we think that? We say our new building is God's will but why do we think that? Why does God want Joel Osteen to have a bigger building that we have? After all we are right and Joel is wrong. Does God care if we have a building?

Based on what we say, we believe God is more interested in us having a building, our visitors having safe travel, and that we be protected from our enemies than he is in the health and well-being of his followers. Isn't that strange? Causes people to give us money, keeps us out of traffic mishaps, but lets our friends continue to suffer. Maybe just maybe he is not answering any of our corporate prayers because we are not focused on what he wants us to be focused on? Are we like Charlie Brown? We find something that goes our way and we then put a target around it to show he answered our prayer, but who are we kidding?

Why are We so Hesitant?

Why are we so hesitant to accept what happens…

 

 

Romans 8:28  

    And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 

 

Matthew 6:31-34  

    Do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'  For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

    "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

 

Philippians 4:6-7  

    … Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

 

Matthew 26:42  

    Again … he …prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done." 

 

 

Why are we so hesitant to accept what happens…

 

 

 

Fasting

Fasting

 

Some have exalted religious fasting beyond all Scripture and reason; and others have utterly disregarded it.

---John Wesley

 

Fasting has been in general disrepute both in and outside the Church for many years. In his book Celebrating Discipline, Richard Foster wrote that he was unable to find a single book published on the subject of Christian fasting from 1861 to 1954. More recently renewed interest in fasting has developed, but we have far to go to recover biblical balance.

What accounts for this almost total disregard of a subject so frequently mentioned in Scripture and so ardently practiced by Christians through the centuries? Two things. First, fasting has developed a bad reputation as a result of the excessive ascetic practices of the Middle Ages. Fasting has been subjected to the most rigid regulations and practiced with extreme self mortification and flagellation. Modern culture confuses fasting with mortification.

Second, we have become convinced that if we do not have three large meals each day with snacks in between, we will be on the verge of starvation. This with the popular belief that each human appetite must be satisfied. Anyone who seriously attempts to fast is bombarded with objections concerning the destructive nature of fasting to one's health. Objections based on prejudice. While the human body can survive only a short time without air or water, it can go for many days before starvation begins. When done correctly fasting can have beneficial physical effects.

The list of those who practiced fasting reads like a "Who's Who" of the Bible: Moses, David, Elijah, Esther, Daniel, Anna, Paul, Jesus.

Fasting is not exclusively Christian Discipline: Zoraster, Confucius, the Yogis of India, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Hippocrates. Now the fact that all these person, in and out of Scripture, held fasting in high regard does not make it right or even desirable, but is should make us pause long enough to be willing to reevaluate the popular assumptions concerning the Discipline of fasting.

Throughout the Bible fasting refers to abstaining from food for spiritual purposes. It is not a hunger strike, the purpose of which is to gain political power or attract attention to a cause. It is also distinct from health dieting which stresses abstinence from food for physical purposes. Biblical fasting always centers on spiritual purposes.

In the forty-day fast of Jesus we are told he "ate nothing" and that toward the end of the fast "he was hungry" and Satan tempted him to eat, indicating that the abstaining was from food  but not from water.

Sometimes what could be considered a partial fast is described: that is, there is a restriction of diet but not total abstention.  Although the normal fast seemed to be the Daniel's customary practice, there was a three-week period which Daniel declared "I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine enter my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all" (Daniel 10:3). We are not told the reason for this departure from his normal practice.

There are also several examples in the Bible of what has been called an "absolute fast," or abstaining from both food and water. It appears to be a desperate measure to meet a dire emergency. Upon learning that execution awaited herself and her people, Esther instructed Mordecai, "Go, gather all the Jews … and hold a fast on my behalf, and neither eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will also fast as you do" (Esther 4:16). Paul engaged in a three-day absolute fast following hi encounter with Jesus (Acts 9:9).  Since the human body cannot go without water much more than three days, both Moses and Elijah engaged in what must be considered supernatural absolute fasts of forty days (Deut 9:9, 1 Kings 19:8).

In most cases fasting is a private matter between the individual and God. There are occasional times of corporate or public fasts. The only annual public fast required in the Mosaic law was the day of atonement (Lev 23:27). It was to be the day in the Jewish calendar when the people were to be in sorrow and affliction as atonement for their sins. Fast were called in times of group or national emergency: "Blow the trumpet in Zion; sanctify a fast; call a solemn assembly; gather the people" (Joel 2:15). When Judah was invaded, King Jehoshaphat called the nation to fast (2 Chron. 20:1-4). In response to the preaching of Jonah, the entire city of Nineveh including the animals---involuntarily, no doubt---faster. Before the trip back to Jerusalem, Ezra had the exiles fast and pray for safety while traveling on the bandit-infested road (Ezra8:21-21).

In 1756 the King of Britain called for a day of solemn prayer and fasting because of a threatened invasion by the French. John Wesley recorded in his journal for February 6^th of that year: "The fast day was a glorious day, such as London has scarce seen since the Restoration. Every church in the city was more than full, and a solemn seriousness sat on every face. Surely God heareth prayer, and there will yet be a lengthening of our tranquility." In a footnote he wrote, "Humility was turned into national rejoicing for the threatened invasion by the French was averted."

Throughout history what could be called regular fasts also developed. By the time of Zechariah four regular fasts were held (Zech 8:19). The boast of the Pharisee in Jesus' parable evidently described a common practice of the day, "I fast twice a week" (Luke 18:12). (A frequent practice of the Pharisees was to fast on Market Days so there would be larger audiences to see and admire their piety.

Regular or weekly fasting has had such a profound effect in the lives of some they have looked for a biblical command for it so that it may be urged upon all Christians. They cannot find any such command. Our freedom in the gospel does not mean license; it means opportunity. Freedom for Paul meant that he was engaged in "fastings often" (2 Cor 11:27). Paul told the church in Galatia, "Do bnot use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh" (Gal 5:13).

Many passages of Scripture deal with fasting but two stand out in importance. The first is Jesus' teaching about fasting in the Sermon on the Mount. His teaching on fasting is directly in the context of his teaching on giving and praying. We have no more reason to exclude fasting from the teaching than we do giving or praying. Second, Jesus states "When you fast…" (Matt 6:16). He seems to make the assumption that people will fast, and is giving instruction on how to do it properly. He was not rejecting fasting his intention was to restore proper fasting.

However, these words do not constitute a command.  Jesus was giving instruction on the proper exercise of a common practice of his day. He did not say it was a right practice or if it should be continued. So, although Jesus does not say "If you fast"  neither does he say "You must fast." He simply said "When you fast."

A second crucial statement of Jesus about fasting comes in response to a question by the disciples of John the Baptist. Perplexed over the fact that both they and the Pharisees fasted but Jesus' disciples did not, they asked "Why?" Jesus answered "Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast (Matt9:15).

In the coming of Jesus, a new day had dawned. The kingdom of God had come among them in present power. The Bridegroom was in their midst: it was a time for feasting, not fasting. There would come a time for his disciples to fast although not in the legalism of the old order.

If the present Church age in light of its connection with Jesus' statement on the new wineskins of the kingdom of God(Matt 9:16, 17). His apostles may have understood the time of his absence is from the time He ascended until the time of his return. Acts 13:2,3 where we read about them fasting may support this view. The time is now.

Jesus appears to make it clear he expected his disciples to fast after he was gone. It is clear Jesus both upheld fasting and anticipated his followers would fast.

In the strictest sense Jesus did not command fasting. But with his statements on the subject why are we comfortable rejecting it off hand?

Are we so accustomed to "cheap grace" that we shy away from more demanding calls to obedience?  Why has the giving of money been unquestionably recognized as an element in Christian devotion and fasting so disputed?  Certainly we have as much evidence from the Bible for fasting as we have for giving. In our society does fasting represent a larger sacrifice that the giving of money?

The very first statement Jesus made about fasting dealt with motive (Matt 6:16-18). It would so easy to use fasting to try to get God to do what we want. We could be tempted to believe that with a little fast we could have the world, including God, eating out of our hands.

Fasting must center on God. Like the prophetess Anna, we need to be "worshiping with fasting" (Luke 2:37). As with the Apostles at Antioch, "fasting: and "worshipping the Lord" must be said in the same breath (Acts 13:2).

God asked the people in Zechariah's day, When you fast… did you at all fast unto me, even to me?" (Zech 7:5). If our fasting is not unto God we have failed. David wrote "I humbled my soul with fasting" (Ps 69:10). If our fasting is not unto God we have failed. Physical benefits, success in prayers, the enduing with power, spiritual insights---must never replace God as the center of our fasting.

Fasting is not commanded it is presumed that we will. Today we are largely ignorant of the practical aspects of fasting but they just might be worthwhile discovering.

Tarrying

Tarrying

We read in the Bible that following the resurrection of Dorcas, Peter "tarried many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner" (Acts 9:43). It was while tarrying in Joppa that the Holy Spirit got through to peter (with visual aids no less) about his cultural and ethnic prejudices. What would have happened if, instead of tarrying, Peter had immediately struck out on a speaking tour to tell of the resurrection of Dorcas?  Is it possible that he would have failed to come to that shattering insight from the Holy Spirit, "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him" (Acts 10:34)? Non one knows. But we can know this God wants various "tarrying" places for all of us where he can teach us in special ways.

We tarry when we spend time in the Bible, studying.

Back to the Bible

In the Old Testament we read that Moses or Joshua or others read the entire law to the people.

   How can we contend for the faith when we go months if not years without reading significant portions of the Bible? We talk a lot about the Bible but that is not what Moses and Joshua did nor was it what early Christians did. They read what they had.

Our lack of reading the Bible can be explained in part by a lack of interest in reading anything. Many adults never read a book after school years.

Study of Books

On the subject of study, unfortunately, many seem to think that studying a book is a simple task. No doubt this flippant attitude accounts for the poor reading habits of so many people.  Studying a book is an extremely complex matter, especially for the novice. As with tennis or typing, when we are first learning it seems that there are a thousand details to master and we wonder how on earth we will keep everything in mind. Once we reach proficiency, however, the mechanics become second nature, and we are able to concentrate on our tennis game or the material to be typed. 

The same is true with studying a book. Study is an exacting art involving a labyrinth of details. To convince people they must learn to study is the major obstacle. Most people assume that because they know how to read words they know how to study. This limited grasp of the nature of study explains why so many people gain so little fro reading books.

When we read a book, three intrinsic and three extrinsic rules govern our study. The intrinsic rules may, in the beginning, necessitate three separate readings but in time can be done concurrently. The first reading involves understanding the book: what is the author saying? The second reading involves interpreting the book: what does the author mean? The third reading involves evaluating the book: is the author right or wrong? Most of us tend to do the third reading right away and often never do the first and second readings at all.  We give a critical analysis of a book before we understand what it says. We judge a book to be right or wrong before we interpret its meaning. The wise writer of Ecclesiastes says that there is a time for every matter under heaven, and the time for critical analysis of a book comes after careful understanding and interpretation.

The intrinsic rules of study, however, are in themselves inadequate. To read successfully we need the extrinsic aids of experience, other books, and live discussion.

Experience is the only way we can interpret and relate to what we read. We read a book on tragedy with different eyes when we have walked through the valley of the shadow ourselves. Experience that has been understood and reflected upon informs and enlightens our study.

Other books can include dictionaries, commentaries, and other interpretative literature, but great books that precede or advance the issue being studied are more significant. Books often have meaning only when they are read in relation to other writings. People will find it exceedingly difficult to understand the New Testament books of Romans and Hebrews, for example, without a grounding in the literature of the Old Testament.

Live discussion refers to the ordinary interaction that occurs among human beings as they pursue a particular course of study. Often my students and I will read from Plato or St. Augustine and have only a fragmentary grasp of the meaning or significance of what we have read. But when we gather for discussion, debate, and Socratic dialogue insights emerge that would never have come without this exchange. We interact with the author, we interact with each other, and new creative ideas are born.

---Richard J. Foster

Christianity Across the Ages

 "Christianity began as a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. When it went to Athens, it became a philosophy. When it went to Rome, it became an organization. When it went to Europe, it became a culture. When it came to America, it became a business."

---Author unknown

Learn to Think Like a Fish / ---Rick Warren

In order to catch fish it helps to understand their habits, preferences, and feeding patterns. Certain fish like smooth, still water, and others like to swim in rushing rivers. Some fish are bottom crawlers and others like a hide under rocks. Successful fishing requires the ability to think like a fish.

Jesus often knew what unbelievers were thinking. He was effective in dealing with people because he understood and was able to defuse the mental barriers they held.

We must learn to think like unbelievers in order to win them.

The Church of God's Intent / Earl Lavender & Robert Glenn

The tremendous growth of the early church was attributable in a great degree to Christians understanding their role as visible members of the body of Christ. Language such as "let us go to church" or "can we be believers without being church attenders" would have been totally foreign to them. They were the church.

If we are going to be the church of God's intent, we must emphasize the organic nature of the church. We have been called to be a visible, active part of the body of Christ. May we challenge every believer to accept that call!