Sweat the Small Stuff -- ---Andy Andrews, The Noticer

Have you ever been bitten by an elephant? How about a mosquito? It's the small stuff that will get you.

A few years ago, a squirrel climbed onto the Metro-North Railroad power lines near New York City. He set off an electrical surge, which weakened an overhead bracket. The bracket allowed a wire to dangle toward the tracks. The wire tangled in a train that tore down all the lines. As a result, forty-seven thousand commuters were stranded in Manhattan for hours that evening.

Remember the Hubble Space Telescope? It was conceived in 1946 and cost $2.5 billion to produce. Yet when it was launched into orbit, NASA discovered that a particular lens had been ground 1/1000^th of an inch less than it should have been. That "little thing" until it was repaired by astronauts, rendered the most expensive telescope in history no better than a good one on the ground.

Then there was Napoleon: a tiny part of the battle became immensely important to Napoleon when he defeated Wellington at Waterloo. But wasn't Waterloo Napoleon's greatest defeat?

On the eighteenth of June 1815, Napoleon did indeed suffer his greatest defeat---an unmitigated disaster---at Waterloo. But that was only after he had won!

Napoleon had brilliantly outmaneuvered Wellington's 77,000 men---this in addition to the more than 100,000 Prussians nearby. Together, those armies easily outnumbered Napoleon's 76,000, but when he got in between them, Napoleon prevented the two from combining. He had already beaten the Prussians two days before, so he detached a part of his force to hold them at bay while pointing the rest of his army toward Wellington and the British.

Napoleon began the battle at a bit after eleven in the morning with an artillery barrage and an initial assault against the British right flank. Pushing back and forth most of the day, at one point Napoleon watched from a hillside as his troops pushed past Wellington's lines, capturing almost all of the 160 British cannons.

Muzzle-loading cannons were packed with black gunpowder, wadding, and a projectile of some sort. The touchhole of the cannon was then contacted with a flaming torch, which ignited the powder and fired the cannon.

It was customary in those days for several of the troops to carry small metal rods---nails---with them in the event they overran the enemy's guns. The metal rods were then hammered into the cannon's touchhole, rendering it useless. When Napoleon's men overran Wellington's position---and his cannons---it became immediately apparent that there were no spikes among his troops. As Napoleon screamed from the hilltop for the cannons to be destroyed, he watched Wellington's men retake the guns and turn them on their attackers. Napoleon was defeated…and all for lack of a fistful of nails.

 

Fasting or Not Fasting

I read a book on fasting. Do you have any ideas why the Church of Christ does not fast? Matthew recorded Jesus as saying, "When you fast," Earlier Jesus had said "When you give…" and "When you pray…" We take those as almost commands although he is not commanding either. He is just referencing a time when they will pray or give or fast. Similar to Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman at well when he presumed his followers would worship. For some reason we follow Jesus' example of praying and giving as well as take his comment as a command to worship but not fasting.

 

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."

 

In May 1774, a message from the Massachusetts Committee of Correspondence informed Virginians of the closing of the port of Boston. The Virginia House of Burgesses set aside June 1, 1774, as a day of "Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer" in support of the citizens of Boston.

 

With Christian's concerns over the way our country is going we never hear a call for Christians to recognize a day of fasting and prayer. I don't remember Billy Graham ever calling for believers to fast or Max Lucado, Rubel Shelly or further back to Batsell Barrett Baxter.

 

Some things we do and some things we do not do and never give either a thought. Do you suppose we should at least consider why we don't or do?

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

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

Veni Vidi Wiki: I came. I saw. I edited collaboratively.

Prayer

"You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions." James 4:3. If we can pray wrongly we can pray rightly. How do we know? We begin to pray to think God's thoughts after him: to desire the things he desires, to love the things he loves, to will the things he wills. Progressively we learn to see things from his point of view.

Occasional joggers do not suddenly enter an Olympic marathon. They prepare and train themselves over a period of time, and so should we. When such a progression is followed, we can expect to pray a year from now with greater authority and spiritual success than at present.

It is liberating to understand that prayer involves a learning process. We all know of situations where we prayed for years with intensity but with marginal success. But if we understand we might be doing some things wrong and we can learn differently.

When we read Jesus' teaching on prayer we see nither the excuses and rationalizations for unanswered prayer we have be taught or Jesus' words are wrong.

When Jesus prayed for others he never concluded by saying "If it be thy will" neither did the apostles or prophets when they were praying for others. They obviously believed that they knew what the will of God was before they prayed the prayer of faith. They were so immersed in the Holy Spirit that when they encountered a specific situation, they knew what should be done. Their prayer was so positive that often it took the form of a direct, authoritative command: "Walk," "Be well," "Stand Up." When praying for others there is no room for indecisive, tentative, half-hoping, "If thy will" prayers.

… let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. James 1:6

When seeking guidance we have to rely on "If it be the will or God."

To understand that the work of prayer involves a learning process saves us from dismissing it as false or unreal. If we turn on our television set and it does not work, we do not declare that there are no such things as electronic frequencies in the air or on the cable. We assume something is wrong, something we can find and correct. We check the plug, switch, circuitry until we discover what is blocking the flow of this mysterious energy that transmits pictures. We know the problem has been found and fixed by seeing, whether or not the TV works. It is the same with prayer. We can determine if we are praying correctly if the requests come to pass. If not, we look for the "block"; perhaps we are praying wrongly, perhaps something within us needs changing, perhaps there are new principles of prayer to be learned, perhaps patience and persistence are needed. We listen, make the necessary adjustments, and try again. We can know that our prayers are being answered as surely as we can know the television set is working.

Sometimes we are afraid we do not have enough faith to pray for this person or that person. Frequently our lack is not of faith but compassion. It seems that genuine empathy between the pray-er and the pray-ee often makes the difference. We are told that Jesus was "moved with compassion" for people. Compassion was an evident feature of every healing in the New Testament. We do not pray for people as "things" but as "persons" whom we love. If we genuinely love people we will desire for them much more than it is within our power to give, and that will cause us to pray.

We should not make prayer too complicated. We are prone to do so once we understand that prayer is something we must learn. Jesus taught us to come like children to the Father. Openness, honesty, and trust mark the communication of children to their father. The reason God answers prayer is because his children ask.

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."

Mustard Seed

Oral Roberts encourages his audience that if they had the faith of a grain of mustard seed they would contribute some money to him and prove their faith.
 
In Matthew Jesus was talking to his disciples who had just failed to remove a demon. They ask Jesus why they could not remove the demon and Jesus said it because of their little faith. Then he made the mustard seed reference, to his disciples not to future generations.
 
In Luke Jesus was talking to his apostles following their request for him to increase their faith and told them "If they had faith like a grain of mustard seed, they could say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey them" again talking to his apostles not future generations.
 
I don't notice us using the mulberry tree but we claim the mountain example with a disclaimer that it is only figurative and not literal. It was literal for the disciples. Why is it figurative for us and what does figurative mean? When we claim it for ourselves aren't we taking it out of context like Oral Roberts does?
 
Joel Osteen says faith gave his church a 30-year lease for the Compaq Center (home to the Houston Rockets) for $12 million.
 
If Jesus was speaking to us does our not being as large as Oral's and Joel's organizations suggest we do not have faith as Oral and Joel?
 
Context is everything, isn't it?

Gospel Advocate, July 2009. And the Walls Keep Tumbling Down.

Dewayne Bryant:

 

Nice article:

 

Americans have come to believe we are special. That things are supposed to be as we want them to be. We are mistaken.

 

A friend who will be teaching a class this evening asked me to lead a song Faith is the Victory. We sing "Faith is the victory! Faith is the victory! O glorious victory, that overcomes the world" and then pout when things do not go as we prefer.

 

We're no different than the Israelites we so often condemn. As a rule one generation does not pass their beliefs to the next generation.

 

Your comments Misplaced Applause are right on the mark. We have lost the right to expect people to take us seriously when we protest Gay Marriages or whatever the name because we have so readily accepted immoral behavior of heterosexuals. Gay is no worse than adultery nor robbery, dishonesty, etc.

 

Christians lived in the pagan Rome we can live in pagan America.

 

Paul wrote, "Come out from among them, and be separate from them." We must get back to the Bible. We must as David did, remember the days of old; meditate on all that Jehovah has done and ponder the work of His hands. We must forget what lies behind and strain forward to what lies ahead. 

 

 

 

Nice article…..

 

  

 

  

 

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

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

Veni Vidi Wiki: I came. I saw. I edited collaboratively.

Thankful or Empty Words

Have you ever wondered where the tradition of "saying grace" or "blessing the food" came from and why we are not equally as diligent when it comes to other "necessities"? Why are we so thankful when it comes to food? Must it be a group activity? Can we be thankful individually even though we are in a group? If we don't know why we do something does that make it an empty gesture? What does "bless the food" mean and what is "saying grace?"

 

I realize we do not bless food but we say we do. If Grace is prayer or thankfulness then what does saved by Grace mean? When I ask the definition I get an acronym not a definition. Habits become tradition and traditions become law...

 

I am appreciative when I walk into the grocery store, when I see a child eating while riding in a car, a poor person eating at a fast food restaurant. It is great that we can eat anytime we want while probably a majority of the rest of the world are not sure where their next meal will come from. As with most of our public prayers are thanks before a meal is a habit.

Too Many Ineffectual Leaders

Leaders living in a different city than the congregation, who are available only on Sundays, who cannot participate in social occasions and meetings of the congregation, who do not promote classes like ladies' or men's Bible classes, who do not suggest, champion, promote or participate in evangelistic activities, who do not lead the effort to prepare men to be elders and deacons, inhibit those same activities and become a detriment to the growth numerically and spiritually.

Microcredit

In 2006 the Brookings Institution documented what they called the "ghetto tax" or higher cost of living in low-income urban neighborhoods. A few examples:

·          Poor people are less likely to have bank accounts so they tend to cash their pay checks at check-cashing businesses which in cities surveyed charge $500 to $50 for a $500 check.

·          Low-income car buyers pay 2 percentage points more for a car loan than the more affluent buyers.

·          Low-income drivers pay more for car insurance. In New York, Baltimore, and Hartford, they pay an average $400 more a year to insure the exact same car and driver risk as wealthier drivers.

·          Poorer people pay an average of 1 percentage point more in mortgage interest.

·          Low-income folks are more likely to buy their furniture and appliances through pricey rent-to-own businesses. In Wisconsin, the study reports, a $200 rent-to-own TV set can cost $700 with interest included.

·          They are less likely to have access to large supermarkets and hence to rely on the more expensive and lower quality offerings of small grocery and convenience stores.

·          Without health insurance they use the emergency room which we all pay for.

·          Lacking the $1,000 for the first month's rent and security deposit for an apartment puts some in places like Days Inn for $40 a night.

·          If you are starting out it will cost about $40 capital investment to get your kitchenette up to speed.

·          Living in a motel, lacking a refrigerator and microwave the poor among us get their food at convenience stores or Wendy's or KFC. Expensive no matter where.

·          With lousy credit the poor pay a higher deposit for a phone.

·          Without health insurance the ER is where you take your children with an average visit of $1000 ten times more that a clinic pediatrician. Or you ignore the hypertension, mystery lump, diabetes until the bill exceeds $100,000.

·          $50 fee for check cashing services

Imagine how microcredit could help move families from motels and shelters to apartments.

If the term microcredit is not familiar to you the concept the extension of very small loans (microloans) to those in poverty. Individuals lacking collateral, steady employment and a verifiable credit history and therefore cannot meet even the most minimal qualifications to gain access to traditional credit. Microcredit is a part of microfinance, which is the provision of a wider range of financial services to the very poor.

Microcredit is a financial innovation that is generally considered to have originated with the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. In that country, it has enabled extremely impoverished people to engage in self-employment projects that allow them to generate an income and, in many cases, begin to build wealth and exit poverty. Due to the success of microcredit, many in the traditional banking industry have begun to realize that these microcredit borrowers should more correctly be categorized as pre-bankable; thus, microcredit is increasingly gaining credibility in the mainstream finance industry, and many traditional large finance organizations are contemplating microcredit projects as a source of future growth, even though almost everyone in larger development organizations discounted the likelihood of success of microcredit when it was begun.

God gave instructions for loaning money to the poor among His people while prohibiting charging interest: Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36-37; Deuteronomy 23:19-20. How could it possibly be wrong for the church to do the same thing or for its members to provide the service?

 Talk about having an affect on the community.

Reference your article "Templates for Prayer" Gospel Advocate, July 2009

Drew Kizer:

 

 

Nice article.

 

We are often hesitant to recognize empty phrases out of respect to the person reciting them. But, too many prayers of our congregations go unanswered or are apparently answered with a 'No" for us not to take a critical look at our practice of public prayer. We must have scriptural support for what we are asking our Father to do and we do not. 

 

Is there evidence in the Bible for our "Opening" prayers? Is there support for a general purpose prayer that covers everything from the preacher's ready recollection up-to and including "if we have been found faithful allow us to enter Heaven?" I do not find such support. Most of our public prayers are time fillers. Where the person, many times caught by surprise, feels duty bound to say something, anything to fill the time allocated. Some use it to preach to the assembled. And, we must understand "in Jesus's name" is not the scriptural way to end a prayer and that saying it does not make it so.

 

Again, nice article, do it again. How about addressing more empty phrases?

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

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

Infinity: There's always room for one more!  

The Law of Moses was a Success

Many people claim the Law given through Moses did not work so Jehovah came up with a replacement plan, Jesus. That is not correct.

The Law of Moses was never intended for any people other than the descendants of Abraham/Isaac. And while governing the lives of Abraham/Isaac's descendants everyone else, the descendants of Ishmael and others not descended from Abraham, were acceptable to God when they did "naturally" the moral teachings of the Law.

The purpose of the Law was to keep Abraham/Isaac's descendants together long enough to bring forth Messiah. Once that happened there was no further purpose for the Law.

Once God chose Abraham/Isaac he had to work with them. At anytime the creator of every thing visible and not visible could have done away with them or could have eliminated "free-will.' Either would have left humankind separated from God without Messiah.

While the Law of Moses stopped at the cross the Gentiles continued to be pleasing to God when they did naturally the things of the Law (moral teachings) at least up to Cornelius.

The Law of Moses did not fail. It was not a mistake. It fulfilled Jehovah's purpose. In the fullness of time Messiah was born and the world changed for everyone.

Gospel or Doctrine? Good News or Divine Instruction / Edward Fudge

The Bible does not separate doctrine from gospel, but it certainly distinguishes between them (1 Tim. 1:10-11). The gospel is the good news of what God has done for us in Christ. Doctrine is divine instruction on how to live in response to what God has done. The English words "doctor" and "doctrine" share the same root. In earlier English, a "doctor" was a teacher and "doctrine" was the content taught. Even today, doctor's degrees (Ph.D., Ed.D., M.D., J.D. and others) presumably equip one to teach aspiring professionals. The King James expression "sound doctrine" means "healthy teaching" -- instruction that produces spiritual health and wholeness, as opposed to teaching that results in spiritual sickness, weakness and retardation.
Healthy doctrine grows out of the gospel and is consistent with it. It produces pure love, a good conscience and sincere faith (1 Tim. 1:5). Unhealthy teaching produces conceit, a morbid interest in controversy and disputes about words. It results in envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions and constant friction (1 Tim. 6:3-5). The "sound" teacher does not need to be rude or frantic -- healthy teaching engenders calmness and respect.

Unfortunately, much of what passes as "sound doctrine" among quarrelsome and sectarian religionists is neither healthy teaching, nor is it any part of the good news. The true gospel frees us from the power of such teachers, and invites us to learn from Jesus -- who is the way, the truth and the life. The gospel is the good news of our salvation. Godly doctrine is instruction in righteous living for those who have heard and believed the gospel.

What Occurs When One is Biblically Baptized?

Matthew records that Jesus told his disciples "at the close of the age, the Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers…" Being in the kingdom does not guarantee one of being saved. I suggest this tells us that once in the kingdom always in the kingdom, at least until the close of the age.

When we talk with others concerning what it takes to be in the kingdom we ask the wrong questions. We talk about salvation. When were you saved? Were you saved before or after you were baptized? Those are vague questions? They are the wrong questions. The question of baptism is not one of joining the church or becoming a Christian it is the only way to have one's sins removed. Being baptized because one is saved is the same as being baptized because one's sins have been forgiven. How were they forgiven? Why were they forgiven?

On Pentecost when the people had become convinced they had killed the Messiah Luke writes they were cut to the heart and wanted to know what they should do. The inference might be they believed killing the Messiah put them on God's black-list and they wanted to know how to get back into a good relationship with Jehovah.

Peter told them change their ways, (they were already sorrowful) and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. God would then give them the gift of the Holy Spirit. Peter continued to exhort them to "save themselves from that crooked generation." Those that received Peter's words we baptized. Luke recorded that day about three thousand souls were added. Added to what? Those who were being saved were added to the number being saved.

Ananias told Paul to be baptized and wash away his sins.

Salvation does not occur at the time of biblical baptism it occurs at the close of the age. Forgiveness of previous sins occurs at the time of biblical baptism. Anyone biblically baptized must be considered in the kingdom because we do not know otherwise. Anyone not biblically baptized does not have their sins forgiven.

Forgiveness of sins occurs at the time of biblical baptism. Salvation occurs at the end of the age.

Atheism is not Logical

Have you ever considered that what atheists think is irrelevant. If they are right their thoughts are accidents and how can anyone consider an accident to be reliable? How serious can you take a human being who actually believes they are descended from a monkey? 

To Associate or Not To Associate, that is the question.

I've been reading Hardeman's Tabernacle Sermons from 1922. He was preaching in a meeting and I believe 45 congregations worked together. In describing the meeting he repeatedly says "each congregation was an independent unit and was in no way bound or obligated by any action taken by others." We insist on congregational autonomy but only if the other congregations do things the way we do things. We spend more time protecting our independence than we do anything else. It is a bit odd since Paul told Timothy to appoint elders in every city. He not say in every congregation. Interpretation is the key. Could mean elders overseeing more than one congregation.

 

As terrified as we are of getting to close to other congregations of the church of Christ we are even more terrified of getting to close to congregations of people who like ourselves are looking to follow Jesus but practice things different than we practice. We treat them as heathens.

 

When we refuse to associate with others who differ in their understanding of the Bible are we implying that we have all the truth and are right about everything? That we cannot unite with someone who differs without compromising our convictions? Does the Bible require we separate from all who differ in belief or practice?

 

When Paul calls for us to welcome (receive, accept) one another, he is including all our sincere brothers in Christ --- even the weakest of them. Doesn't he forbid judgment regarding their particular scruples and practices? 

 

Jesus did not accept us because we are right about everything. And since he accepts us while we are a sinner, poor, weak, and blind, how can we reject others because of the same qualities?

 

Doesn't separating from others who are in Christ work against Jesus' prayer for unity? When addressing the seven churches of Asia Jesus did not urge any to come out from among them and be separate by starting a pure, loyal church. They were warned to repent and reform. In the "dead" church in Sardis there were "a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. Like Lot in the midst of corrupt Sodom, a person may be a part of a sinful society and still remain righteous. One may be in a congregation without approving or participating in the prevalent sins of others in it. One cannot separate himself from sinful people entirely and he is guilty only of the sins that he practices or approves. No where do we read where one group was advised to separate from the rest within the church. Isn't similar advice today unscriptural and anti-scriptural? Aren't all groups flawed?

 

When Paul warned to "come out from them, and be separate from them," he was quoting Old Testament demands for separation from idolatrous involvements. Paul asked rhetorically, "What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?" Paul is not calling for separation from brothers in Christ but from the Corinthian idolaters.

 

Is it possible we treat brothers and sisters in Christ as if they are idolaters? Is the brother in the Christian Church who obeyed the same gospel that we obeyed to be regarded as an idolater? Even though we may fear that a Baptist is in some error, is he an errant believer, an unbeliever or a servant of Belial? If he is not a believer, what is he? Is he a pagan or an atheist? He is attempting to serve the same Jesus we are attempting to serve. Those in the Church of Christ (even in our own congregation) who differ from us in a belief and/or practice — how are they to be classified? If separation from them is demanded will it be because they are unbelievers or idolaters?

 

Paul told the Christians in Rome that teachers who would create dissensions were to be noted and avoided. Paul had already taught them how to live in unity through mutual acceptance. No one was to be allowed to operate contrary to that doctrine by imposing his scruples on others so that division would be created. Those who were disturbing the unity in Rome were not sincere, ignorant, weak disciples, but they were selfishly licentious Judaizers.

 

In his letter to the Philippians Paul identifies them as perverted and sinful factious men to be ignored. The Thessalonian disciples were told to keep away from the deadbeat who would not work. Paul did not advise a withdrawal into separate congregations, but to "drive out the wicked person from among you." This action was not against any sincere brother who might hold some different ideas or practices, but it was toward the arrogantly immoral person among them. Is Paul directing us to drive out our brothers in the Christian Church as a group? Are they to be considered as flagrantly immoral, greedy, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, or robbers? How about Baptists?

 

No writer advised one group of disciples to reject another group and start a separate congregation. Brothers are not to be dealt with as though they were idolaters.

 

Jesus prayed that we be one. The Spirit made us one. Paul begs us to keep that unity and says "welcome one another!" Do we demand that we divide from our brothers who differ?

 

Churches of Christ are pretty much homogenous groups. We do not go out of our way to make others not like us to feel welcome. We avoid people not like ourselves.

“Come Out And Be Separate!” - Cecil Hook, Free To Change

 

 

The plea to "come out from them and be separate from them" is being urged upon us with renewed passion since some of our people have been meeting with others of the Restoration Movement to discuss unity. This warning is coming from persons who fear compromise. The one calling for separation implies that he is with a group which has all the truth. If one thinks that he is right about everything, he cannot unite with someone who differs without compromising his own convictions. So he develops a spirit of exclusiveness which demands that he separate from all who differ from him in belief or practice.

 

…On the other hand, others are calling out, "Welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God" (Rom. 15:7). They point out that Paul called upon us to receive one another in spite of differences of conviction and practice about such things as circumcision, eating of meats, and keeping of days.

Accept or separate from — which shall it be? Does this put us in a contradictory dilemma? Are there some fine lines of distinction that we hair-splitting scribes must detect and observe? If so, how treacherous the path to life becomes!

 

When Paul calls upon us to welcome (receive, accept) one another, he is including all our sincere brothers in Christ — even the weakest of them. He forbids that we judge them regarding their particular scruples and practices. Paul does not even grant us the luxury of looking upon a brother with contempt.

 

How should we accept each other? "As Christ has welcomed you!" Brother or sister, even though I do not know you, I do know that Christ did not accept you because you are so good, so right on everything, so lovable, and so perfect in all aspects. He accepted me when I was sinful, ignorant, misdirected, and lacking in every aspect. And I have not grown out of that state. Since he accepts me while I am a sinner, poor, weak, and blind, how can I have the audacity to reject others because of the same qualities?

 

To advise disciples to separate from others who are in Christ is to work against Jesus' prayer for unity. In addressing the seven churches of Asia with all their threatening problems, Jesus urged none to "come out from among them and be separate" by starting a pure, loyal church. Rather, they were warned to repent and reform. In the "dead" church in Sardis there were "a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy" (Rev. 3:4). Like Lot in the midst of corrupt Sodom, a person may be a part of a sinful society and still remain righteous (1 Pet. 2:7). One may be in a congregation without approving or participating in the prevalent sins of others in it. One cannot separate himself from sinful people entirely but he is guilty only of the sins that he practices or approves. One may be in a division without being divisive, or in a sect without being sectarian in spirit. In none of the epistles was one group advised to separate from the rest within the church. Such advice today is both unscriptural and anti-scriptural. There is no such thing as a congregation of the "one, true, pure church" to join. All groups are flawed.

 

When Paul resounded the Lord's warning to "come out from them, and be separate from them," he was quoting Old Testament demands for separation from idolatrous involvements. In this passage (2 Cor. 6:14-18) Paul is demanding, "Do not be mismated with unbelievers." He asks rhetorically, "What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?" Paul is not calling for separation from brothers in Christ but from the Corinthian idolaters whose licentious worship at the temple of Venus, supported by prostitute priestesses, would be a temptation to the disciples.

 

What a sickened spirit it is that allows one to treat his own brothers in Christ as idolaters! Is the brother in the Christian Church who obeyed the same gospel that you obeyed to be regarded as an though he were an idolater? Even though you may fear that a Baptist is in some error, must you classify him as an unbeliever or a servant of Belial? If he is not a believer, what is he? Is he a pagan, a Buddhist, or an atheist? He is serving the same Jesus whom you serve. And those disciples in the Church of Christ (even in your own congregation) who differ from you in belief and practice — how do you classify them? If you demand separation from them, then you imply that they are as unbelievers and idolaters.

 

Paul says welcome, but Diotrophes says put them out! "He refuses himself to welcome the brethren, and also stops those who want to welcome them and puts them out of the church" (3 John 9f). Do you stand with Paul or Diotrophes?

 

Teachers who would create dissensions were to be noted and avoided (Rom. 16:17f). In Chapters 14 and 15 Paul had already taught them how to live in unity through mutual acceptance. No one was to be allowed to operate contrary to that doctrine by imposing his scruples on others so that division would be created. Those who were disturbing the unity in Rome were not sincere, ignorant, weak disciples, but they were selfishly licentious Judaizers.

 

Paul identifies them further in the Philippian epistle (1:15; 3:2; 3:18f). The perverted and sinful factious man (Titus 3:10) was to be ignored. The Thessalonian disciples were told to keep away from the deadbeat who would not work (2 Thess. 3:6-13). In dealing with these believers, Paul advised no withdrawal into separate congregations. "Drive out the wicked person from among you," Paul instructs (1 Cor. 5:13). This action was not advised against any sincere brother who might hold some different ideas or practices, but it was toward the arrogantly immoral person among them. Read the entire chapter. Is this a directive for us to drive out our brothers in the Christian Church as a group? Are they to be considered as flagrantly immoral, greedy, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, or robbers? Even the Baptists are not that bad!

 

In this passage, Paul is dealing with a brother, not a church. No inspired writer ever advised one group of disciples to reject another group and start a separate one. Brothers are not to be dealt with as though they were idolaters.

 

Jesus prayed that we be one. The Spirit made us one. Paul begs us to keep that unity and says "welcome one another!" Do you demand that we divide from our brothers who differ?

The Gathering / Great Smoky Mountains Church of Christ

The website of The Gathering (http://www.thegatheringfamily.com/ says they began in 1999 and 10 years later have 1300 - 1400 attending their multiple services.
 
Their stated purpose is: "We offer contemporary, biblically-driven worship services that are alive with energy and creativity, as well as excellent childcare, exciting children's and student ministries and challenging programs for the men, women and senior adults."
 
I recognize they have a selected vision when it comes to the Bible. I am not addressing the rightness or wrongness of their activities I am addressing their activeness. Their activeness draws people, at least once.
 
What is the difference in the growth of Great Smoky Mountains Church of Christ that began in 1992 and today has a membership of 140 or so and The Gathering that began in 1999 and today has an attendance of 1300 or so? I suggest the primary difference is The Gathering has at least one and maybe more "activities director(s)."
 
Groups do not survive without leaders with vision and I suggest we do not have leaders, not to mention leaders with vision. Our Men's Meetings take too many sessions to come to any conclusion of significance. We are afraid to call men or women leaders due to our not understanding how elders oversee congregations. When elders are the only leaders congregations have, those congregations aren't doing anything and do not survive long term.
 
No one looks at the "activities director" on a cruise liner or at resort hotel as the captain of the ship or the manager of the resort. They are not leaders; they are not usurping the authority of the captain or manager. They have a job to do and that is to keep the guests active.
 
The Gathering has a man or woman or both or more than one of either coming up with ideas for the group as a whole to become involved in.  It is most likely all of the ideas are not adopted nor does everyone participate in all of the ideas that are but they are doing things, they are active, they are involved. They have been planning their new building for several years and talking about what they will do but at the same time we were receiving mailers announcing what they are doing at the time and what they will be doing. We have nothing on the table for our new building. We have nothing to announce to the public.
 
Great Smoky Mountains Church of Christ needs activity directors, idea generators, cheerleaders, encouragers, Barnabi (multiple Barnabases) and they will need our support, our participation; our involvement.
 
What is "unscriptural" or "unbiblical" for Great Smoky Mountains Church of Christ to hire "activity directors?" If you believe the concept to be sinful, what alternative do you suggest? How about no negatives without a corresponding positive.
 
How many of us will be around in fifteen years, how old will we be and will we be as active or more active than we are today?
 
Groups cannot and will not survive long term without leaders with vision.

Too Ecumenical?

Recently we as a congregation of the church of Christ have found it beneficial to visit the buildings of people who we believe teach religious error. We are not corrupted by visiting their buildings or by associating with them. At least some of us know them well enough to ask about visiting their buildings. Why don't we ask them over for a picnic on a Saturday afternoon? Why don't we have a singing and invite them to join us? Both groups consider themselves disciples of Jesus so why do we avoid them, and they us, until we want to evaluate their construction design skills? If we were in a foreign country we might not be so particular as to the religious practices of others who speak our language before deciding to associate with them or avoid them.

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

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

Inconsistency: It has its ups and downs.

When I Become a Millionaire vs When We Get Our New Building

Last week in class Al mentioned something about a person saying if they were a millionaire they would do a lot of good things and then mentioned about doing something with the dollar and a quarter the person's got. Can that be extrapolated to us and our new building? As an individual talks about what he will do when he is rich we talk about what we are going to do when we have the new building but what difference will the building make to Pigeon Forge? Unless it makes a difference we have spent money on our personal comfort, haven't we? Permitting only members of the church of Christ to use the building we are going to be insisting on a quantum leap in the involvement of our members aren't we? Think we will get it?

Poor Saints in Jerusalem

On the subject of the poor saints in Jerusalem, do we know why there were so many poor Christians in that city? Historically I am missing the cause. There was a famine around 47 but I believe 1st & 2nd Corinthians were written around 56 or so. Money was not necessarily the best item to contribute to the people caught up in Katrina so I imagine it was not necessarily the only thing needed by those people in Jerusalem especially if there was no food. Weekly collections would have taken a lot of storage capacity.

In the 1950s the contribution did not rate a prayer, at least in the congregations I remember attending. The congregations I would have attended would have been in Springfield Ohio and Chapel Avenue in Nashville where my grandfather was an elder. I remember when the congregation we attended decided to add a prayer. I remember hearing discussions concerning that giving it prayer status was putting to much emphasis on the physical. Up to that point after the communion the same men would grab a basket and collect. That would suggest the church in the early 20th century did not consider the contribution part of the "official worship" service but a necessity to pay the bills or possibly no purpose just the act of giving. Do you remember any movement for a prayer or was your experience different than mine? Am I too negative to suggest if we just had containers by each door the people would tend to give less than when silence rules and others are watching them? I know of a few congregations that deduct it from your savings or checking account. They still pass the basket but fewer people contribute that way. We might like it as a way of speeding up things.

I am not suggesting we should not support the local congregation but for us to use the collection Paul gave instructions to the church in Corinth for is taking it out of context. 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. Contributing to the support for the poor was a practice of Jesus and his apostles as well as with the early church and is not optional individually or corporately but we are comfortable with it being a minor purpose for our collection...

Since the purpose of the weekly collection was so that no collections would be necessary when Paul came through is the collection the only command we have that we can apply the principle but change the purpose?

The Lord's Day

The first day of the week was important to the Christians of the first century. While John was on Patmos he wrote that he was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day. Jesus was raised on the first day of the week. After his resurrection Jesus met with his disciples on three succeeding first days of the week. The Holy Spirit descended on Pentecost, the first day of the week. The disciples assembled on the first day of the week under the apostle's teaching. The writer of Hebrews admonished the readers to not forsake the assembling together. The assembly on the first day of the week was to join together to engage in the apostles fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Meeting on Saturday or any other day as a replacement for Sunday is unbiblical.

A Modern Parable - Batsell Barrett Baxter

A Modern Parable

Batsell Barrett  Baxter

The Work of the Church -- Evangelism

 

There was a farmer who owns a large field of grain. It is harvest time, and the wheat is already golden brown and needs to be cut. It must not be left in the field very long because the wind or the rain may destroy the crop. Early in the morning he goes into the small town and calls for helpers to come and harvest his crop. The immediate response is favorable and many respond to the invitation.

 

When they arrive at the field they see the golden harvest and are deeply impressed. They talk about what a wonderful privilege it is to get to harvest so big and bountiful a crop. But someone points out that the fence around this field is not very attractive. It is an old rock fence and in many places the stones have tumbled down. So the people set to building a new fence. They spend all morning getting stones from a nearby stream which they use to build a beautiful wall around the field.

 

When the fence is finished, someone suggests, "Let's get to work." Someone else responds, "Wait, if the sun gets any hotter, or if it should rain, we will need shelter." They all agree, so over in one corner of the field they build a shelter for themselves. It is so beautifully done that they decide to put a plaque on it, with names inscribe, so that everybody who passes by in generations to come will know just who was thoughtful enough to build such a wonderful shelter.

 

Then someone says, "Now let's get to the harvest." But others say, "It is noon and we ought first to eat." So they work diligently until quite a feast is prepared. It is in keeping with the beautiful wall and the fine shelter and is a wonderful feast indeed. After the dinner is finished, there is a period of rest, of course, and then someone says, "Now for the harvest." But someone else replies, " With such a great responsibility and with such a great challenge before us, do we not need to be better dressed than we are?" Immediately, each provides for himself better garments with which to do the harvesting. Then again they turn their thought to the golden grain and begin to sharpen the scythes with which to cut the grain. After a while they are razor sharp. But as they look at the grubby old handles they are not satisfied. They are unworthy instruments for so great a work. So they begin to carve those ugly handles into beautiful pieces, and some even add intricate filigree work of gold and silver. One man is even able to adorn his scythe with mother of pearl. It is truly a beautiful thing.

 

Now they are ready to go to the harvest. But suddenly someone says, "It is night, the sun is gone down." It is then that they realize that only a few have cut any grain. So these wonderful people (like us) turn back sorrowing with guilty feelings to meet the man who owns the field. He comes to meet them, expecting shoulders laden with heavy bags of grain, but instead he finds only beautiful tools and a story of wonderful fences and fine clothes and a good dinner and a shelter to take care of those who work. He asks sadly, "But where is the harvest?" the people are speechless and ashamed.

 

We No Longer Need God

We no longer need God to sustain us. We have science and technology. From the beginning of history, humans have known God as both the giver and the sustainer of life. Our ancestors planted seeds and prayed for rain. They thought the sunshine was a blessing, and they bowed their heads at harvest time. They gave thanks when livestock was born. Now, even those who believe in God no longer see him as the sustainer of life. Food comes from a grocery store and clothing from the mall, and shelter is desired for curb appeal.

Our contemporary spiritual unplugging brings a great sense of control. If we are clever and lucky, we can take care of our needs. We all enjoy the fruits of technology. Psychologists and scientists declare us freed from our superstitious shackles: It's foolish to depend on God to send the rain and protect us from the lightning. Yet despite having a record amount of control over our lives, something is amiss.

Ten percent of the women and three percent of the men in our country need an antidepressant to get through a day, a day with no fear of starvation, invasion, or want. What's wrong? We find we can buy a house but not a home. We can purchase entertainment, but not contentment. We can travel the globe, but feel utterly imprisoned. We have degrees, but little wisdom.

Perhaps more than any generation, we have rejected the concept of God the Sustainer, If God made nature to sustain us, and if we reject his sustaining gifts, will there be no consequences? I believe that we will have untold misery as we reject God as the source of our lives.

In our country and around the globe, the weather is becoming hostile. We are having record numbers of hurricanes, heat waves, floods, droughts in large part because we are abusing God's creation. God planned nature to sustain us. We should work with his plan, but this will require a new mindset.

In October 2004, the Indian subcontinent was flooded by a deadly tidal wave. Such events happened and will continue to happen., but one of the reasons for the record number of fatalities in this case was not the wave but the fact that all the mangrove trees along the shoreline, which normally hold back the waves, had been cut down to make way for the white sandy beaches so loved by the tourists.

As we manipulate nature without regard or concern for its underlying design, we will increasingly have to deal with unnatural problems

---J. Matthew Sleeth, MD

Serve God Save the Planet

 

How can We know what God expects us to do?

There are so many good things that need to be done, one person cannot do them all. Much of the time we wear ourself out in good works and still end the day feeling guilty.

This is a question with which many of us struggle at some time or another. When we begin to sink under its weight, however, that is a clear signal that we need to stop and realign our perspective. We all benefit from periodic mind-renewals (Rom. 12:2). Because our culture measures people's worth by their productivity, it is easy to slip into thinking that God takes the same view. In fact God created Adam and Eve in a completed paradise, then gave them the privilege of tending it as his caretakers. Similarly, he creates us new, fully accepted and forgiven already in Christ Jesus, then invites us to serve him as he leads (Eph. 2:8-10).

It is God's job, not ours, to be in charge of the world while he patiently works out its final redemption. He allows us to join in his work -- with all the joy of a five-year-old "helping" his mother make cookies or her father mow the yard. Indeed, God wants us to be busy -- "zealous for good works" (Titus 2:14). Before we were born he envisioned what those good works would look like for each of us, then he gifted us with special abilities and temperaments needed to accomplish those very things (Ps. 139:16; Eph. 2:10). We may offer ourselves to God each new day, confident that he will fulfill his purpose in our lives and not forsake us while that is going on (Ps. 138:8).

God impressed these truths indelibly in my mind and heart one day in the late 1970's as I was praying while driving to my job as typesetter in a printshop. "Praying" is probably too generous. I was really grumbling -- explaining to God how he was wasting my talents with this particular job and reminding him of my resume. I ended my sass with an accusatory question: "Where has all this gotten me?" The answer was immediate, nonverbal and unmistakable. "You've got the question wrong," God told me. "It's not where this has gotten you, but have you been faithful with what you've been given?" That is one conversation I will never forget so long as I have a mind.

God doesn't need us to do anything. And he isn't a harsh taskmaster concerned only with productivity. He is rather a loving Father who enables what he asks, who invites us as beloved children to join in his own work -- more for enjoying the company than for any good we will do. We can actually be God's fellow workers (1 Cor. 3:9)! He doesn't expect you or me to do everything. He does have just the right job in mind for each of us today. We need only ask him to reveal it to us -- then to bring him glory and ourselves enormous satisfaction by doing it.

Sunday is Not Worship

The Church of Christ habitually calls what we do on Sundays and Wednesdays, in fact for every assembly, worship. We have even identified five acts of worship: praying, singing, preaching, giving, and the Lord's Supper.

 

Not being any reference to these practices as "items of worship" in the Bible the reference grew out of the Restoration Movement

 

Since members of the Church of Christ are big on commands, examples and necessary inferences considering them to be worship confuses people to say praying for ourselves, singing to each other, giving to ourselves, listening to preaching are items of worship and primarily nonparticipatory at that being sit and listen (the two items we can actually participate in are targeted for reducing to a minimum the time spent involved in them). All of that could be certainly edifying but worship?

 

Paul told the members of the church in Rome each should present their body a living sacrifice and what we do on Sundays is hardly that. Members are generous with their money but often not with their time. Sunday is not a day of worship. Attending requires involvement. Being present requires involvement. Leaving to present our body a living sacrifice requires involvement. 

 

In an attempt to reduce the brain drain of young people from the assembly everything we do should be supported by the Bible. They want to worship and they want to be involved and their questions indicate they do not accept standard explanations or definition of what is acceptable or unacceptable and certainly not our lack of involvement.

 

For years the church has accepted as inevitable that people will not attend Bible classes, Sunday Evenings and Wednesday Evenings. Who knows what would be if everything was more than sit and listen? Worship is not sitting and listening. That is the OT priesthood between the people and God as well as Catholic the priest being always between the people and Christ. The people do no need someone standing between them an God. We are all priests. We worship Jehovah directly. Worship requires involvement.

 

Calling Sunday worship, which the Bible does not, the people are encouraged to believe they have completed their worship for the week with no further need for further involvement.

 

Since there is no reference to these practices as items of worship church leaders should not consider them such. They items mentioned can be but the way we practice them they are not. If our practices come out of the Restoration Movement we are no longer the church Jesus established on Pentecost we are the church established in the 1800s. The physical things you mention are not part of anything but facilitate the activities.

 

In the business community it is said insanity is doing the same thing but expecting different results.

 

Is the church insane?

 

So You're In A Hurry.

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.