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!

Question on Prayer

Ray, You might want to ask Martha to print this one.

 

We were talking this morning and I mentioned doing things intentionally not just letting them slide by. I will not address personal prayer or even family prayer; it Is not anyone's concern other than the individual or family.  But corporate prayer is everyone's concern. My experience has been, in Ohio, the only way you got off the prayer list was to die.  That is similar to my experience so far in Pigeon Forge.  

 

In our public assemblies we routinely have prayer to "open" the service. What do we pray about? Our prayers commonly include generalities about several things and a few particulars. We may cover the same points in the closing prayer that we did in the opening prayer---and maybe even at some prayer in between.

 

In the New Testament, prayers were focused on the work the Christians were doing. Wouldn't it be more meaningful for ours to be?

 

I have often advocated that we stop and think about what we are asking God to do and do we have Bible support for that expectation?

 

When we pray for God to touch the heart of an individual are we expecting Him to do something to that individual that he would not have otherwise done? Do we believe He would have let that person be lost if it were not for our request for him to touch their heart? Is that an additional way to be saved?

 

How about the 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 when we die?

 

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? Lacking anyone being healed in response to our prayers are we sure we are asking "rightly?"

 

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. When praying for others there is no room for indecisive, tentative, half-hoping, "If thy will" prayers.

 

On the other hand, when we are seeking guidance we must rely on "If it be the will or God."

 

When Rick Warren's wife developed cancer of some type he said they prayed for God to heal her. Rick Warren said in a short time it was evident God was not going to answer their prayer in the way they wanted so they asked him to help them deal with it. I do not know her status but their response is refreshing. We continue to claim we believe in prayer, we continue to see no positive responses and we do not question if there is something we should do differently. Karl Marx said religion is opiate of the people. We need to know our prayers are being prayed "rightly" with the correct purpose.

 

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.

 

Frequently our lack is not of faith but maybe it's 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.

 

We have slipped into a bad habit of praying and expecting nothing. We continue to accept the lack as when the television does not work that obviously there is no electricity.

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

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

The Comma Sutra, Making Grammar Sexy Since 1875

Holy?

In translating for deaf people poetry does not come through. The deaf have no idea that words sound alike and signs can mean a variety of words. There is no easy way to ensure the person reading the sign gets the precise word the person signing intended. Church words have a similar issue.

Most church words have a variety of meanings and without clear a definition there an excellent opportunity that the person hearing the word understands a different meaning than the person speaking.

On various occasions I have asked people for definitions of blessings, church, sermon, grace, holy and others and most of the time they people say they either do not know or are not sure. They have a picture in mind but no definition.

In a recent class I wondered how many people had the same meaning the teacher was thinking about and what they had pictured. I wonder how many had the image of a monk or priest (specifically the Pope) or were wondering about the holy kiss. The Webster Dictionary meaning for holy is:

• Dedicated to religious use; belonging to or coming from God; consecrated;
• Sacred spiritually perfect of pure; untainted by evil or sin; sinless; saintly
• That which is held in deepest religious reverence or is basically associated with religion.

Using words such as consecrated, sacred, reverence is interesting since many do not have a clear definition of those words either.

Strong's Concordance gives the base word as meaning separateness, withdrawal and is associated with purity and righteousness and suggests a meaning of righteousness and purity. I do not find much to hang my hat on.

The term hallowed is defined as made holy or sacred; sanctify; consecrate; venerate; more good words. It is like going in a circle.

Free Will

Speaking of free will: what is the purpose for elders to have believing children and for deacons to manage their household? A decision or action of an individual as a result of their free disqualifies an otherwise qualified individual from being an elder or deacon. Interesting preachers are not under such a scrutiny and their children can be little hellions.

Is one responsible for another's free will decisions? Under what situation is the individual not responsible for another's free will decisions? Are we saying that if the training would have been correct the free will decisions would have been correct?

Economic Values of Contemporary Society

A few years ago when some property was sold at auction for $20 millions and I remember thinking the Cherokee would find it odd that someone would pay that much for something the Cherokee and other tribes used for free. The only reason someone would pay that amount is they were confident they could charge others more. The concept of owning property appears to have been strange to the people we refer to as Native Americans.

Benevolence is us giving to someone something that we "own." The first Christians are said to have considered everything they had was available to whomever needed it. Comparing the average member of the Church of Christ with what we know of the Amish and other similar groups is it possible we have become too worldly? Is it possible our culture has caused us to mistake covetousness for ambition; to confuse greed with financial security? That we prefer to trust in ourselves for financial security instead of what we say the Bible says about God taking care of the sparrows? That we become so indebted that we cannot fulfill our responsibilities? Was he being rhetorical when he told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and give to the poor?

When Jesus was talking about people's destination in judgment evangelism was not a criteria he used to determine an individual's being sent to the right or to the left.

The Old Testament takes exception to the belief of an absolute right to private property.

Leviticus 25:23
"The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me.

The year of Jubilee had one purpose, to redistribute wealth. If Israel had observed the Jubilee it would have eliminated the problem of the rich becoming richer and the poor poorer.

The Aramaic term for wealth is "mammon" and Jesus condemns it as a rival to God:

Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."

Jesus was unambiguous to economic issues:

Luke 6:20
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said:
"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

Luke 6:24
"But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.

Jesus likens the difficulty of the wealthy entering the kingdom of God to be as a camel walking through the eye of a needle. With God all things are possible but Jesus understood the difficulty. He knew the grip wealth has on a person. He knew:

Matthew 6:21
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Matthew 6:19
"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal,

Jesus is not saying that the heart should or should not be where the treasure is. He is stating a fact that wherever you find the treasure, you will find the heart.

Jesus speaks to the question of economics more than any other single social issue. If, in a comparatively simple society Jesus lays such strong emphasis upon the spiritual dangers of wealth, how much more should we who live in a highly affluent culture take seriously the economic question?
The letters reflect the same concern:

1 Tim. 6:9
But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.

1 Tim. 3:3
not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

1 Tim. 3:8
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.

Hebrews 13:5
Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, "I will never leave you nor forsake you."

James 4:1-2
What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? [2] You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask.

Ephesians 5:5
For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

1 Corinthians 5:11
But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

1 Tim. 6:17-19
As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. [18] They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, [19] thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.
are free to receive the provision of God as a gift that is not ours to keep and be freely shared with others. We need to understand the Bible denounces the materialist and the ascetic equally.

Acts 2:44
And all who believed were together and had all things in common.

Acts 4:32
Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.

Banned in Boston

As we found last Sunday in class, members of the Church of Christ do want to think about fasting and anyone who mentions it is to be put back in the box. There are many other subjects on the not-to-be-discussed list including this one. Recently I contacted The Gathering concerning the printer they use for their bulk mailing literature. Along with the name of the printers, April, added a comment:

 

"We believe we are all in this together and it is truly about reaching as many people as we can for Christ, so please don't hesitate to contact me."

 

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 but he is guilty only of the sins that he practices or approves. Nowhere 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 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 are we claiming 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?

 

Does the Bible teache us to treat The Gathering as flagrantly immoral, greedy, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, or robbers?

 

In the story of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector which one represents members of the Church of Christ?

 

 

 

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

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

The Comma Sutra, Making Grammar Sexy Since 1875

Fasting? NO WAY!!!!

A few days ago I asked the rhetorical question if you knew why the Church of Christ does not fast. The answer is we do not want to and no one can make us.
 
This morning I stated a fact: we have an example of a congregation of the early church fasting before making a decision. A second fact: we have examples of congregations of the early church participating in the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. I do not see where either are commanded but they did them. We say one example is not relevant but the second one must be done "every" first day of the week.
 
I did not say that congregation fasted on Sunday nor did I suggest fasting was a sixth activity of worship nor did I suggest fasting was a necessity.  But the comments addressed and denied all of those.
 
Classes as ours do little to further the knowledge of anyone. The reason being we all know what we believe and no one is going to change that. That may be why we are comfortable talking about the necessity of baptism, who killed Jesus, and is it important to go to church.
 
But one fact is undeniable. At least one congregation in the first century fasted before making a major decision. And we do not want to talk about it. We pick and choose much like those of other religious persuasions.

Prayer

We often say we believe in prayer. We quote "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (KJV) When I lived in Ohio, the only way an individual got off the prayer-list was to die. Similar here in Pigeon Forge. Do we have any idea why God continues to say "No" or to ignore our prayers on behalf of sick people?

James says: "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?

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

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 the excuses and rationalizations for unanswered prayer we have been 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." At least once they were unable to heal a man and Jesus said it was because they did not have enough faith. When praying for others there is no room for indecisive, tentative, half-hoping, "If thy will" prayers.

Again, James: … 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

Oh the other hand, when seeking guidance we have to rely on "If it be the will of 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. Isn't it 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. Can't we?

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 maybe it's 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.

Wouldn't it be a worth the time for at least the men to try to understand why our prayers for the sick are unsuccessful? Or do we continue on accepting when the television does not work that obviously there is no electricity? Or is it just me?

The Warren Harding Error

Recently I was reading about the subconscious decisions we make. On the conscious level we do not treat tall people differently than we treat short people. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that height---particularly in men---triggers a certain set of very positive unconscious associations. About half the companies on the Fortune 500 list were asked questions about its CEO. Overwhelmingly, the heads of big companies are white men. But they are also almost all tall: on average, male CEOs were just a shade under six feet tall. Given the average male is five foot nine, that means that CEOs as a group have about three inches on the rest of their gender. This statistic understates the matter. In the U.S. population, about 14.5 percent of all men are six feet or taller. Among CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, that number is 58 percent. In the general American population, 3.9 percent of adult men are six feet two or taller. Among the CEO sample, almost a third were six feet two or taller.

 

It is possible to staff a large company with white males but it is not possible to staff a large company without short people. There simply aren't enough tall people around. Yet few of those short people ever make it to the executive suite. Being short is probably as much a handicap to corporate success as being a woman or an African American.

 

This stereotyping is not limited to the executive suite. Researchers who analyzed four large studies that had followed thousands of people from birth to adulthood calculated that when corrected for variables such as age and gender and weight, an inch of height is worth $789 a year in salary.  That means that a person who is six feet tall but otherwise identical to someone who is five foot five will make on average $5,525 more per year. One of the authors, Timothy Judge, points out, "If you take this over the course of a 30-year career and compound it, we're talking about a tall person enjoying literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of earnings advantage."

 

It appears when making some very important decisions we may not be as rational as we think.

 

What is called the Warren Harding Error is, in its simplest form, the decision he would make a good president based solely on his appearance which was tall, dark, and handsome. The word "Roman" was occasionally used in descriptions of him. He served two years before dying unexpectedly of a stroke. He was, most historians agree, one of the worst presidents in American history.

--
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.

Limit Growth -- George Barna, The Habits of Highly Effective Churches

Many of the keenest insights highly effective churches have learned were discovered through harsh reality; trial and error, abject failure, unexpected victories. One of their most important structural insights is one that most of them stumbled onto: You must limit your annual numerical growth.

Our research on congregational dynamics suggests that growing by more than 15 percent per year puts untenable stress on a church.

How can you limit growth without rejecting spiritually needy people? Here are some of the methods used by highly effective churches.

·          Periodically preach a series of "hard truth" messages.

·          Set higher and higher standards of quality in ministry.

·          Limit program involvement to the maximum level at which a church can provide excellence.

·          Modify marketing efforts based upon growth projections.

·          Work cooperatively with other churches to introduce newcomers to other congregations that might be more effective at meeting their needs.

No Learning? No Teaching! ---Amram, Singapore Educational Consultants

If there is one fundamental about successful teaching that all teachers must adhere to is this simple maxim, "There is no teaching if there is no learning." This maxim shows that teaching and learning are simply two sides of the same coin and one cannot exist without the other.

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.