Wednesday, January 03, 2007
kef1000blog
“Toward a Christian Worldview”
Confusion in the American Christian community today causes many to take partisan stands which are unbiblical and unreasonable. This confusion is the result of misunderstandings of Scripture and of the proper role that Christians are to play in a democratic society.
Let’s view some popular distortions and misconceptions using a biblical and historical lens to gain a proper perspective.
The first and predominant view mistakenly taught by some Christian leaders is that the
The fact that we have a system of government based on majority rule does not equate to a national structure based on Christ. Our government is based on the U.S. Constitution. Most of our laws are based on English common law and represent an accumulation of legal thought throughout the centuries. Our laws are the result of the compromise of divergent interests that negotiated their positions under the notion of the consent of the governed.
Indeed, the Declaration of Independence states: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Notice that no mention of God or the Bible is made. The validity of a government is based on the consent of those directly affected by a government’s decisions. The overriding concern is the extent to which the government affects the citizen’s safety and happiness, rather than its ability to encourage the sanctification of its populace.
Corresponding viewpoints to the Christian nation theory include the belief that our nation was born as an act of divine will according to Scripture. There is a notion that the founding fathers were on a mission of God in demanding their independence. We must be careful to distinguish between the permissive will of God and his active authoritative will that for example was exercised when Moses led the Israelites out of
According to the Declaration: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
The document claims that God has entitled them to exalt themselves to the equal of
Romans 13:1-7 makes it clear that complaints such as “no taxation without representation” and other concerns about British control over the colonies did not justify rebellion against the God-ordained government. God is unchanging. So either Paul was wrong or God had no active role in
First Peter 2 instructs, “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right” (
Nowhere in Scripture are we told to insist on a democratic form of government. Christians are given no right to rebel if the government is not to their liking. These verses apply to every Christian in every nation no matter what form of government they live under. Fortunately for Americans we live in a representative democracy. This form of government grants us certain privileges and responsibilities. Understanding how to meet these demands as Christians is imperative if we are to live up to our calling to be salt and light (Matthew
This is not to say that God is incapable of using events as a blessing to the world. But it does show that those who see the rebels as God’s emissaries involved in a holy mission can make their claim only in opposition to Scripture and not because of it.
In the same sense it should be noted that the founding fathers were not acting under divine inspiration either. Upon the signing of the Declaration, for instance, John Adams said of the 4th of July: “I believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival,” he wrote his wife, Abigail. “It ought to be celebrated by pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other...” He takes a totally secular view as well he should. Someone working directly for God would have been more inclined to call for hymns of joy, sermons of praise and prayers of thanksgiving to a benevolent God for rescuing
Another popular, but bogus notion commonly taught is that all of the founding fathers were Christians. The founding fathers were among the most gifted group of men that one era has ever seen assembled in the history of the world. Collectively, their talents are awe inspiring. Based on their writings we may conclude that as a group they certainly believed in God. But their beliefs could hardly be described as Christianity in any Biblical sense of the word. A smattering of the record they left us:
George Washington wrote, “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their [not our?] religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.” (Letter to Sir Edward Newenham,
James Madison wrote, “During almost fifteen centuries, the legal establishment of Christianity has been on trial. What have been the fruits of this trial? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; and in both, clergy and laity, superstition, bigotry and persecution” (Speech to the General Assembly of Virginia, 1785).
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." (Declared Benjamin Franklin in Toward The Mystery.)
None of these is intended as an indictment of the gentlemen mentioned. It is not our responsibility to determine the faith of others. But these quotations should give us pause when we are tempted to think the founding fathers were saints of the first order who live in heaven today and wonder what went wrong with the Christian nation they established.
Another related misconception is that God’s promises to the nation of
When read in context (see 2 Chronicles
When a Christian thinks of his nation he should think of what Scripture calls “a holy nation” and not primarily his physical nation. This means that our fellow citizens are Christians anywhere in the world and not just those people who have a claim to citizenship in our secular community. There are many nations but only one church. Those of us in the church have a dual citizenship but only one ultimate loyalty. When deciding political questions we must use that one loyalty as the sounding board for all our positions.
According to 1 Peter 2, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God.” When a Christian thinks of belonging to a nation he should see himself as set apart from his fellow (non-Christian) citizens. As Paul points out in Ephesians, “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household” (2:19). And to the Philippians in chapter 3, “But our citizenship is in heaven” (
We have a dual citizenship: American and Christian. But we are to have only one ultimate loyalty: to Jesus Christ and his church. This ties us to every Christian in every nation. They are our brothers and sisters—members of the same family. When we think of family we know that we are to treat its members differently than we do non-family. We have a special obligation to support them that is stronger than any obligation we may feel to others.
In terms of nationhood, we are internationalists functioning in a world of national interests. We should be concerned for the welfare of our fellow Christians in other lands. We are one people—the church.
This fact has profound implications when a Christian views the nation’s foreign policy. The true welfare of others should be of paramount concern to us even at the expense of the more narrow national interests of the
Likewise, Christian leaders also regularly use the idea of restoring “the good old days” as a rally cry for the American church and plead for a return to some magical cultural point in time. When some Christian leaders compare today’s culture with the past they are very troubled with what they perceive to be the dwindling influence of the church in society.
Prayer and Bible reading in public schools are often cited as two elements of the past that are sorely missed in the present. It is assumed that if only the reinstitution of these and a few other great traditions were made
In fairness it should be noted that the same society that required prayer and Bible reading in schools was also a society that was racially segregated, denied equal opportunities to women and dealt unfairly with many of its neediest citizens. In short, if we do not oversimplify “the good old days,” but instead engage in a sober analysis of the entire picture we must conclude that not everything was better and that we have an opportunity to correct perceived problems today.
Even if we could require prayer and Bible reading in our public schools we should not do so. Making everyone abide by the same standard would be a violation of their civil rights. No child should be made to conform to activities that violate his conscience or that of his parents. First Peter
If prayer in school is required, then the questions of the content and the recipient of the prayers need serious attention. Prayer to the god of the lowest common denominator should offend real Christians. Just as prayer to God the Father in the name of His Son Christ Jesus offends atheists and proponents of a myriad of other religions as well, repeating a watered down prayer to an amorphous being in a public setting is not spiritually uplifting nor is it satisfying to a real believer. Playing at worship is not designed to please God, which should be our goal. There is no reason to assume that such prayers would have an uplifting affect on the students or any tangible benefit such as improved school discipline or improved test scores.
Finally, it needs to be pointed out that students are free to pray or read their Bibles in school now. Institutionalizing these acts would carry no real benefits and would cause a host of problems.
God expects us to be a positive influence on our society by setting an example for others. Our American citizenship should be seen as a blessing that not all Christians enjoy. By granting us citizenship in a free society, God has placed a burden on our shoulders that not all Christians share.
For instance, we have an obligation to vote. And voting is counterproductive if we do not choose wisely among the candidates. This does not mean that we are to vote for the most Christian candidate. Such a strategy would be impossible to implement anyhow since we cannot accurately judge.
Jesus told us in Matthew 10:16, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” Part of being shrewd is determining which candidate is most likely to accomplish the most rather than which one seems to be the best Christian.
Regardless of who is in office, it is possible that some demands of government run counter to the word of God. Should this occur we must take a stand similar to Peter’s when he declared, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts
On some issues there is no Christian position. But all Christians are obligated to search Scripture to inform their decisions. We must recognize that there is a difference between principle and policy. We look to the Bible as our guide to the principles upon which we base our policy positions.
Some Christians feel that the best way to be “salt and light” to the society is to mobilize and vote to require all Americans to abide by what they see as Christian principles of conduct, but there is no Biblical mandate to do so. In fact, doing so violates our instructions given in 1 Peter
For example, consider a modified pledge of allegiance: “There being no god I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
This is not the pledge being sought by those who wish to remove the phrase “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance; but what the “separation of church and state” crowd is after, however, is neutrality in the pledge on the question of God’s relationship to the nation. Before disregarding these dissenters, we should try to understand the issue without relying on our prejudices to shape our opinion.
First, consider the atheist. Making a pledge to a fictitious god is a violation of his personal beliefs. Opting out of saying the pledge degrades him also. He is no less a citizen or an American because he is so fundamentally wrong about God. As a full partner in our nation, he is entitled to the respect to which Peter referred.
Second, consider the non-Christian person of faith. Whether Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, he is not referring to God the Father when reciting the pledge. If the pledge is to be something held in common to serve to bind us together as Americans, how can we all have a different deity in mind as we speak?
Third, imagine the howls of protest that we would hear if “under God” were suddenly replaced with “under Allah”. We cannot pretend that the words do not matter or that it is only the thought that counts. When Christians say “under God” we mean under the rule of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To think otherwise demeans the very act of pledging.
Being in the majority does not give us the right to disrespect our fellow citizens. They are partners with us in the nation—not in Christ’s church. The best way to show respect for our fellow citizens, love for our fellow believers, respect for God, and honor for our government is to delete “under God” from the pledge. To insist on its retention is nothing less than an attempt to Christianize a secular exercise under the guise of doing God’s will.
God’s will for us is the same as it has always been: to make faithful believers of all people regardless of their national identity. We should not become sidetracked by fighting meaningless battles over the nation’s facade of faith.
With a worldview based on the preceding concepts American Christians are not just ordinary citizens. Our outlook should be different than non-Christians and because of those differences, not all Christians will be popular. Jesus said in John 15:20, “No servant is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.” We are not called to seek the approval of men. We must take our stand as God would have us stand: on Biblical principles that we hold to regardless of the views of our fellow citizens or the inconvenience of holding them. Our guiding principle as American Christians is not the narrow self-interest of regular citizens but the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ. We should want no other.
“Toward a Christian Worldview”
Confusion in the American Christian community today causes many to take partisan stands which are unbiblical and unreasonable. This confusion is the result of misunderstandings of Scripture and of the proper role that Christians are to play in a democratic society.
Let’s view some popular distortions and misconceptions using a biblical and historical lens to gain a proper perspective.
The first and predominant view mistakenly taught by some Christian leaders is that the
The fact that we have a system of government based on majority rule does not equate to a national structure based on Christ. Our government is based on the U.S. Constitution. Most of our laws are based on English common law and represent an accumulation of legal thought throughout the centuries. Our laws are the result of the compromise of divergent interests that negotiated their positions under the notion of the consent of the governed.
Indeed, the Declaration of Independence states: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Notice that no mention of God or the Bible is made. The validity of a government is based on the consent of those directly affected by a government’s decisions. The overriding concern is the extent to which the government affects the citizen’s safety and happiness, rather than its ability to encourage the sanctification of its populace.
Corresponding viewpoints to the Christian nation theory include the belief that our nation was born as an act of divine will according to Scripture. There is a notion that the founding fathers were on a mission of God in demanding their independence. We must be careful to distinguish between the permissive will of God and his active authoritative will that for example was exercised when Moses led the Israelites out of
According to the Declaration: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
The document claims that God has entitled them to exalt themselves to the equal of
Romans 13:1-7 makes it clear that complaints such as “no taxation without representation” and other concerns about British control over the colonies did not justify rebellion against the God-ordained government. God is unchanging. So either Paul was wrong or God had no active role in
First Peter 2 instructs, “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right” (
Nowhere in Scripture are we told to insist on a democratic form of government. Christians are given no right to rebel if the government is not to their liking. These verses apply to every Christian in every nation no matter what form of government they live under. Fortunately for Americans we live in a representative democracy. This form of government grants us certain privileges and responsibilities. Understanding how to meet these demands as Christians is imperative if we are to live up to our calling to be salt and light (Matthew
This is not to say that God is incapable of using events as a blessing to the world. But it does show that those who see the rebels as God’s emissaries involved in a holy mission can make their claim only in opposition to Scripture and not because of it.
In the same sense it should be noted that the founding fathers were not acting under divine inspiration either. Upon the signing of the Declaration, for instance, John Adams said of the 4th of July: “I believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival,” he wrote his wife, Abigail. “It ought to be celebrated by pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other...” He takes a totally secular view as well he should. Someone working directly for God would have been more inclined to call for hymns of joy, sermons of praise and prayers of thanksgiving to a benevolent God for rescuing
Another popular, but bogus notion commonly taught is that all of the founding fathers were Christians. The founding fathers were among the most gifted group of men that one era has ever seen assembled in the history of the world. Collectively, their talents are awe inspiring. Based on their writings we may conclude that as a group they certainly believed in God. But their beliefs could hardly be described as Christianity in any Biblical sense of the word. A smattering of the record they left us:
George Washington wrote, “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their [not our?] religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.” (Letter to Sir Edward Newenham,
James Madison wrote, “During almost fifteen centuries, the legal establishment of Christianity has been on trial. What have been the fruits of this trial? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; and in both, clergy and laity, superstition, bigotry and persecution” (Speech to the General Assembly of Virginia, 1785).
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." (Declared Benjamin Franklin in Toward The Mystery.)
None of these is intended as an indictment of the gentlemen mentioned. It is not our responsibility to determine the faith of others. But these quotations should give us pause when we are tempted to think the founding fathers were saints of the first order who live in heaven today and wonder what went wrong with the Christian nation they established.
Another related misconception is that God’s promises to the nation of
When read in context (see 2 Chronicles
When a Christian thinks of his nation he should think of what Scripture calls “a holy nation” and not primarily his physical nation. This means that our fellow citizens are Christians anywhere in the world and not just those people who have a claim to citizenship in our secular community. There are many nations but only one church. Those of us in the church have a dual citizenship but only one ultimate loyalty. When deciding political questions we must use that one loyalty as the sounding board for all our positions.
According to 1 Peter 2, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God.” When a Christian thinks of belonging to a nation he should see himself as set apart from his fellow (non-Christian) citizens. As Paul points out in Ephesians, “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household” (2:19). And to the Philippians in chapter 3, “But our citizenship is in heaven” (
We have a dual citizenship: American and Christian. But we are to have only one ultimate loyalty: to Jesus Christ and his church. This ties us to every Christian in every nation. They are our brothers and sisters—members of the same family. When we think of family we know that we are to treat its members differently than we do non-family. We have a special obligation to support them that is stronger than any obligation we may feel to others.
In terms of nationhood, we are internationalists functioning in a world of national interests. We should be concerned for the welfare of our fellow Christians in other lands. We are one people—the church.
This fact has profound implications when a Christian views the nation’s foreign policy. The true welfare of others should be of paramount concern to us even at the expense of the more narrow national interests of the
Likewise, Christian leaders also regularly use the idea of restoring “the good old days” as a rally cry for the American church and plead for a return to some magical cultural point in time. When some Christian leaders compare today’s culture with the past they are very troubled with what they perceive to be the dwindling influence of the church in society.
Prayer and Bible reading in public schools are often cited as two elements of the past that are sorely missed in the present. It is assumed that if only the reinstitution of these and a few other great traditions were made
In fairness it should be noted that the same society that required prayer and Bible reading in schools was also a society that was racially segregated, denied equal opportunities to women and dealt unfairly with many of its neediest citizens. In short, if we do not oversimplify “the good old days,” but instead engage in a sober analysis of the entire picture we must conclude that not everything was better and that we have an opportunity to correct perceived problems today.
Even if we could require prayer and Bible reading in our public schools we should not do so. Making everyone abide by the same standard would be a violation of their civil rights. No child should be made to conform to activities that violate his conscience or that of his parents. First Peter
If prayer in school is required, then the questions of the content and the recipient of the prayers need serious attention. Prayer to the god of the lowest common denominator should offend real Christians. Just as prayer to God the Father in the name of His Son Christ Jesus offends atheists and proponents of a myriad of other religions as well, repeating a watered down prayer to an amorphous being in a public setting is not spiritually uplifting nor is it satisfying to a real believer. Playing at worship is not designed to please God, which should be our goal. There is no reason to assume that such prayers would have an uplifting affect on the students or any tangible benefit such as improved school discipline or improved test scores.
Finally, it needs to be pointed out that students are free to pray or read their Bibles in school now. Institutionalizing these acts would carry no real benefits and would cause a host of problems.
God expects us to be a positive influence on our society by setting an example for others. Our American citizenship should be seen as a blessing that not all Christians enjoy. By granting us citizenship in a free society, God has placed a burden on our shoulders that not all Christians share.
For instance, we have an obligation to vote. And voting is counterproductive if we do not choose wisely among the candidates. This does not mean that we are to vote for the most Christian candidate. Such a strategy would be impossible to implement anyhow since we cannot accurately judge.
Jesus told us in Matthew 10:16, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” Part of being shrewd is determining which candidate is most likely to accomplish the most rather than which one seems to be the best Christian.
Regardless of who is in office, it is possible that some demands of government run counter to the word of God. Should this occur we must take a stand similar to Peter’s when he declared, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts
On some issues there is no Christian position. But all Christians are obligated to search Scripture to inform their decisions. We must recognize that there is a difference between principle and policy. We look to the Bible as our guide to the principles upon which we base our policy positions.
Some Christians feel that the best way to be “salt and light” to the society is to mobilize and vote to require all Americans to abide by what they see as Christian principles of conduct, but there is no Biblical mandate to do so. In fact, doing so violates our instructions given in 1 Peter
For example, consider a modified pledge of allegiance: “There being no god I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
This is not the pledge being sought by those who wish to remove the phrase “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance; but what the “separation of church and state” crowd is after, however, is neutrality in the pledge on the question of God’s relationship to the nation. Before disregarding these dissenters, we should try to understand the issue without relying on our prejudices to shape our opinion.
First, consider the atheist. Making a pledge to a fictitious god is a violation of his personal beliefs. Opting out of saying the pledge degrades him also. He is no less a citizen or an American because he is so fundamentally wrong about God. As a full partner in our nation, he is entitled to the respect to which Peter referred.
Second, consider the non-Christian person of faith. Whether Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, he is not referring to God the Father when reciting the pledge. If the pledge is to be something held in common to serve to bind us together as Americans, how can we all have a different deity in mind as we speak?
Third, imagine the howls of protest that we would hear if “under God” were suddenly replaced with “under Allah”. We cannot pretend that the words do not matter or that it is only the thought that counts. When Christians say “under God” we mean under the rule of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To think otherwise demeans the very act of pledging.
Being in the majority does not give us the right to disrespect our fellow citizens. They are partners with us in the nation—not in Christ’s church. The best way to show respect for our fellow citizens, love for our fellow believers, respect for God, and honor for our government is to delete “under God” from the pledge. To insist on its retention is nothing less than an attempt to Christianize a secular exercise under the guise of doing God’s will.
God’s will for us is the same as it has always been: to make faithful believers of all people regardless of their national identity. We should not become sidetracked by fighting meaningless battles over the nation’s facade of faith.
With a worldview based on the preceding concepts American Christians are not just ordinary citizens. Our outlook should be different than non-Christians and because of those differences, not all Christians will be popular. Jesus said in John 15:20, “No servant is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.” We are not called to seek the approval of men. We must take our stand as God would have us stand: on Biblical principles that we hold to regardless of the views of our fellow citizens or the inconvenience of holding them. Our guiding principle as American Christians is not the narrow self-interest of regular citizens but the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ. We should want no other.
kef1000blog
Friday, April 08, 2005
Giving
Have You Checked Your Giving Lately?
It's amazing how hard we try to reduce aspects of Christian living to simple formulas which may be taught and followed with clear conscience and complete faith that: such actions will yield the desired result: a right standing before God. We place a high value on certainty —— we want clear behavioral standards. An example of this tendency is found in the teaching of tithing as a New Testament norm. But the notion that all Christians are where God wants the-a to be as long as they are giving 10% of their income to the church is wrong,
It should be noted that the New Testament has no
injunction to tithe. One should also be aware that: the faithful Jews of the Old Testament were actually required to give well over 10% when the cost of sacrifices and special donations for the poor are included in their obligations. The teachings of the New Testament may, therefore, be considered quite apart from any 10% rule.
When one accepts Jesus as Lord and -Savior one recognizes that "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it..," and that "...all things were created by him and for him."(Psalm 24:1; Colossians I;16) God's ownership leaves all people in the role of His stewards or caretakers. The Christian freely admits this condition of existence while the unbeliever clings desperately to the fantasy that he alone creates and owns what he calls his.
Jesus made it abundantly clear in the parables of the talents and of the sheep and the goats that is His people we will have to give an account of our stewardship of the things He has given us,(Matthew 25:14-46). He taught that we are to seek the kingdom of heaven when He likened to a treasure in a Field or a pearl of great value: something for which we must eagerly give up all that we previously claimed to own. (Matthew 13; 44-46) Jesus cautioned that some will ha trouble doing this; "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 19:23) But we are given no choice in the matter. We are told that "No one can serve two master ...You cannot serve both God and Money."(Matthew 6:24)
We should make no attempt to "... store up for yourselves treasures on earth…" but instead "...store up for yourselves treasures in heaven… For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."(Matthew 6:19-21) It is important to note that our heart follows our treasure. Where we place our treasure, what we do with our money, is an act of our will —- we choose how we will spend our income. Jesus is telling us that if we want to belong to Him, we must choose correctly; and to reinforce the point He cites two examples of what not to do. In the parable of the rich fool we see man whose income has increased. He desires to "Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry." So, he decides to hoard his excess. (In
who have the means to relieve the suffering of others but selfishly choose not to do so.(Luke
We mast remind ourselves chat "...as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, . . " and that "Anyone… who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins."(Galatians 6:10; James 4:17) John adds; "We should love one another. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?"(l John 3:11,17) Jesus asked, "...if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?" And He states that a good standing in one's local church isn't enough; "You...justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts," (Luke
Paul instructs that "On the first day of every week, each one... should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income…"(1 Corinthians 16;2) One offerings should be planned and given on a regular basis. They should accurately reflect our income. Paul did not require not certain percentage, For some Christians 10% is beyond their means, ?or others, to give only 10% would be an insult to a generous God who has blessed (entrusted) them with more than their reasonable needs require. Concerning the members of Christ's body, the church, we read: "We have different gifts, according to the grace given us,,-if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously-,-"(Romans 12:6,8)
Each of us must regularly and conscientiously review our giving in light of Scripture. We are not to take refuge in some man-made, arbitrary percentage. We are not to give only when we are in the
mood. We are not to give based on some special need of the church. We will be held accountable as stewards of God —- it is on that basis that we should give.
Independence Day
The
While it is true that various leaders in our nation have appealed to Scripture and claimed God's support in order to enhance their standing among believers we should reject such posturing. For example, efforts to appropriate God were used by both sides in our civil war. Leaders are always eager to claim the endorsement of their people's gods. This requires no base motive on their part. They may be quite sincere---and quite mistaken. But patriotism must not be allowed to crowd out spirituality.
The New Testament was written to apply to individuals---not nations; and it applies equally to all---regardless of their nationality. As Christians we know that "...our citizenship is in heaven..." (
Our standing is made clear in 1 Peter 2:9,10:"...you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation...Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God..."
Paul endorses our supra-national status in Ephesians 2:19 when he says, "Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and-aliens but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household..." Additionally, in 2 Corinthians 6:l4-l6 Paul warns us, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers." As Christians our real compatriots are fellow saints throughout the world—-not our non-Christian neighbors, coworkers and friends. Paul bluntly asks, "What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?"
As for the American Revolution I doubt that Peter would have participated in light of his comment in 1 Peter 2:11-17. "Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires..."( such as claiming, contrary to Jesus, that as Americans we do not have to pay our taxes to the king that God has placed over us.) "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him..." (tar and feathering is not allowed.) "Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king!" These are not the words of a political revolutionary. In short, each of us has two independence days to celebrate no matter where we live: the birth of the church and our birth by baptism into that church. We rightly celebrate these the first day of every week.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Service
The Blessing of Service
Most of us find it easier to remember things when we can associate or link new information to the body of knowledge we already possess. With this fact in mind, let's look at 1 John 3:16-24 and James 2:14-19.
Both writers make it clear that where there is no pain, we'll have no gain. As Christians, we must demonstrate our love for one another by sacrificial service. What matters is what we do rather than what we say. Wishing someone well is not enough--no matter how pious we may sound. We are obligated to act for their benefit, and if such action causes us some uncertainty or inconvenience due to changes that must be made or carries some cost in time or money, then we are to gladly suffer such "pain" as a demonstration of our love and the Spirit of God who is in us. James and John join Nike in shouting "JUST DO IT!"
We have heard the expression, "use it, or lose it." But have we realized that this applies to our faith? James tells us,"...faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action is dead." And so also is our salvation. Good works will save no one. But a viable faith is one that results in works--—and that means service. Indeed, John explains that when we sometimes experience momentary doubts about our salvation we should analyze our acts of service as a measurement of our spiritual health. Interestingly enough, he seems to sense that the more actively engaged for Christ
we are the more glaring our shortcomings will appear to us. Therefore, he offers us the reassurance that God (much more than Bo Jackson) knows everything, including our hearts.
Our Lord came to serve and to give and told us to do likewise. In our congregation everyone is given many opportunities to share their wealth of money, time, and talents. Let's take advantage of this fact and begin to utilize our blessings more fully.
God's Word
The Importance of God's Word
"What do you believe? Why do you believe it? What does your church teach about this? What position do you think Christians should hold concerning this issue confronting our society?"
Do these questions make you feel uneasy? If confronted by a neighbor, co-worker, or a representative of another faith, would you gladly respond with a well-reasoned, Bible-based answer or stutter something about never discussing religion or politics?
Our answers to these questions indicate how much we have
grown in our knowledge of our Lord. Paul writes,” Do your best to present yourselves to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." To understand Scripture is to know God and to properly apply Scripture in our daily lives to our current circumstances is to serve God. To function as God intends we must: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. "God expects us to learn His Word so that we may please Him by sharing it with others and by modeling it in our approach to everyday living. His expectation alone should cause us to study. But there is more: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is---His good, pleasing and perfect
will." So, our knowledge of Scripture affects others by first affecting us. We are continually being improved by gaining a wisdom found only in God's Word. We each become more Christ-like and collectively as Christ's church bring Him to the world.
To paraphrase Paul: How can we bring what we do not have? How can we have, if we have not learned? How can we learn, if we will not study?
Let's make our congregation a place where study is not only expected but is also accomplished. To do less is to weaken our relationship to God, His church, and His cause.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
fellowship
The Encouragement of Fellowship
When most of us think of Christian fellowship, we immediately envision a pot luck dinner, a church-wide picnic, or a Sunday school class party. While those activities are all part of our modern understanding of the term, much more is intended by the writers in the New Testament.
Paul reports in his letter to the churches in
The apostles saw in one another people "who were baptized into Christ Jesus..." whose "old self was crucified with Him..." and who were "alive to God." They saw "sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus..." to whom "God sent the spirit of His Son...." Such an identification demands the fullest acceptance--—a type of communion in the Spirit.
They were a part of each other because by belonging to God and sharing His Spirit they became His sons and, therefore, brothers. All the saints in your local congregation are part of God's family, and should honor, accept, and serve one another as a result. We can take comfort from this fact and this is what we mean by the encouragement of fellowship.
The Joy of Worship
The Joy of Worship
Your local congregation of Christ's church opens the doors of its building the first day of each week to provide an opportunity for God's people to join in worship of Him. This is a time of joy for many reasons:
1. God knows us individually as we really are and in spite of that still loves us and cares for us. He stands ready to forgive.
2. God calls us His. We have been reconciled to Him by His Son, Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior. He has actually adopted us as His children and allows us to call Him Father.
3. God has provided each of us with a Comforter and Guide, the Holy Spirit, and an Advocate, Jesus Christ. If we stray, we will be called back and if we repent, we will be forgiven.
Each Sunday we gather to celebrate these facts and to praise and thank God for His mercy and His grace. We offer our prayers and He not only listens, He responds. We return a portion of the material wealth with which He has blessed us and He continues to bless us in many ways. We sing hymns of praise and He acknowledges our love. We preach and teach His Word and He increases our knowledge and our wisdom. We remember the death, burial and resurrection of His Son and He counts us faithful.
We are really fortunate to have such a God. Let's continue to enjoy worshipping Him.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
faith healing
A Doctrine of Faith Healing?
James 5:13-16
"Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective."
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 3, pg. 53: "The sick (James 5:14, literally, 'without strength,' and perhaps prostrate) patient is to call for the elders of the church who are to anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord and pray over him. Biblical anointing is symbolic of the Holy Spirit who administers the manifestation of gifts. There is no suggestion of medicinal use of the oil, since this might have been administered by anyone beside the elders. The use of oil symbolized sanctified commitment of the sick body to the operation of the Holy Spirit's ministry of quickening the mortal bodies of believers that they might be enabled and led to fulfill the ministry He has purposed for them as fellow heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:11-17). The promise of James 5 is that the anointing of oil 'and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up' (v. 15). Furthermore, believers are to confess their faults to one another that they may be healed, since 'the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects' (v. 16). Thus it appears that the suggested procedure as related to the sick that are to call for the elders of the church is not the only circumstantial manner by which God heals. God also heals as believers pray for one another; but it is the elders and not so-called 'divine healers' that are to be sought when believers who are sick in body are hindered from gathering with the assembly."
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2, pg. 875: "(d) Jas. 5:13 ff. merits special mention. On the one hand, it is laid down that a Christian's whole life, the good times as well as the bad, should be lived in an atmosphere of prayer, i.e. that the Christian should lay before God everything that happens to him, so that each new experience is suffused with prayer. On the other hand, in cases of sickness, prayer is to be accompanied by the laying on of hands, anointing and confession of sins. Here the laying on of hands (implicit in the phrase 'let them pray over him') and the anointing with oil, being outward actions, are considered to be tangible, readily intelligible expressions of prayer for the benefit of the sick individual, while confession of sins is made in order to remove any hindrances to prayer."
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1, pg. 120: "3. Where anointing with oil is performed on sick persons (Mk. 6:13; Jas. 5:14), we are reminded of the anointing of the sick elsewhere in the ancient world. It may be that in the NT medicinal properties were attributed to the anointing, though these are not emphasized. Probably passages like Mk. 6:13 and Jas. 5:14 have their background rather in the practice of exorcism. Anointing is a symbolic act by which demons are cast out. The healings performed by the disciples or elders of the church were accompanied by anointing, and took place in the context of preaching and prayer. Healing, and therefore anointing also, came to be seen as a visible sign of the beginning of God's reign. The quasi-magical misunderstanding of anointing is, however, held firmly in check, especially in Jas. 5:13 ff., by the importance attached to accompanying prayer."
The New International Dictionary of the Bible, pg. 278:
"James urges that the church elders be called to pray for the sick. He also directs that they 'anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord’ (James 5:14). The latter has perhaps wrongfully been assumed to refer to a church ritual. Bauer's Greek lexicon states that the Greek verb 'aleipho,' used for 'anointing,' commonly referred to rubbing oil on the skin as a household remedy. It would seem to be James's meaning that the sick one is not only to be prayed for but the commonly accepted remedies are also to be applied as an indication of compassionate concern. Jesus' disciples made similar use of the application of oil to the sick (Mark 6:13)."
New Dictionary of Theology, pg. 288:
"In Jas. 5:14-16 the sick man is to call the elders who are to visit him, pray over him and anoint him with oil. This latter instruction may be interpreted ritually or medically. The verb used for anointing (aleipho) suggests a medical interpretation, otherwise the verb 'chrio' would have been used. James is saying that the elders should pray over him and carry out the prescribed medical treatment in the name of the Lord."
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries -- James, pg. 130:
"It is therefore more probable that the mention of oil in this passage is to be regarded as one of the accompaniments of that 'miraculous' healing which was no infrequent occurrence in the apostolic age, and is regarded in the New Testament as a supernatural sign vindicating the truth of the Christian gospel in the early days of its proclamation. Neither is it implied that oil is the necessary accompaniment of such cures, nor indeed that any such material medium at all must be used. The purpose of the use by the elders of oil in the name of the Lord, as they prayed over the sick man, was we may assume the same as the use by the apostles of the laying-on of hands. It helped in certain cases by the application of a substance that could be felt by the patient to reinforce the evidence of the ear that the Lord was being invoked by the prayer of faith to bestow upon him, if it should be His will, a miraculous cure. If this line of interpretation is right, it follows that this verse cannot be appealed to as evidence that the Lord has committed to His Church for all time the power of miraculous healing."
Which of these viewpoints is correct? We cannot be sure. We may have a preference but are we entitled to insist upon its acceptance as the only Biblical and, therefore, valid interpretation? Perhaps all of them are acceptable, depending on the request for healing in question. "Today we speak of 'spiritual' and 'medical' work as two distinct missionary channels. It is very doubtful if the early Church made such a distinction, the more so as they saw disease as one manifestation of Satan's power, though not necessarily to be connected directly with sin on the part of the individual." (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries -- Mark, pg. 109)
But all of this is to miss the point: the topic of James 5:13-18 is prayer. James is saying that Christians should make prayer a habit in all
circumstances, good or bad, and that our emotional or physical condition should have no bearing on our faithfulness in this area. He offers a spectrum of examples; it ranges from those who are experiencing troubles such as illness to those who are bursting with happiness. His intention is to demonstrate the relevance of God to our lives and to commend prayer to all believers as a vehicle for appropriating His assistance at all times and under every condition.
James understood our frailty in the practice of our faith. When things are going well we tend to overlook or forget prayer; when problems arise we usually attempt to handle them ourselves; and we generally ignore the problems of others almost entirely. Such behavior leaves God out of our lives and James declares the error of this practice. His message agrees with other New Testament writers --- we should allow God to be active in our lives by being in regular communion with Him.
The conclusion that there is no intention to propound a doctrine of faith healing is supported by both the brevity of this passage and its absence elsewhere in Scripture. There is, of course, a reference to healing, both physical and spiritual. We must be careful to avoid the temptation to ferret out some ironclad formula regarding either. The one who is sick is instructed to call the elders for prayer. The fact that the prayer is to be offered in faith helps explain why the elders are to be called. The implicit assumption is that their prayer will be heard by God --- not because they are elders, however. Rather, it is because they are Christians; that is, righteous men, believers in Christ. It is not their office that gives them status with God; it is their faith. Such faith is presumed to be genuine because it has been tested by the congregation which selected them. "The description of the elders' prayer in this verse as the prayer of faith does not differentiate it in any way from other kinds of prayer, for there can be no Christian prayer at all without faith; nor does it imply that, if only there is a sufficient degree of faith, prayer will be answered. Rather would it appear to draw attention to the great truth, so much emphasized in this section, that in no circumstances of life is faith impossible; and therefore there is no situation in which Christians cannot resort to prayer. All prayer, however, is subject to the reservation 'Thy will be done'; but, provided that this limiting condition is always in the mind of him who prays, Jesus has promised ‘All things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive1 (Mt. 21:22)." (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries — James, pg. 132) That explains why verse sixteen refers to the "righteous" rather than to the elders. Indeed, we are told to "pray for each other." Any Christian's prayer, therefore, has value to the one who is sick --- provided, of course, that both have confessed any sin that might stand between them or between them and God.
Another question raised in this passage concerns the use of oil. As the above quotations demonstrate there are varying positions, any one of which may be supported by an appeal to scholarship. No doubt an experiential base also exists in the minds of some regarding the continued use of oil. Stated briefly our primary choices are:
1. Its original use was medicinal and because of the advances in medicine that we enjoy it is no longer needed.
2. Its original use was spiritual and miraculous and was available only to the apostolic church of the first century.
3. Its original use was spiritual although not miraculous and, a) should be continued as a sign of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the
modern church, b) should be discontinued because the modern church receives its instructions concerning the Holy Spirit from the written Word of God which was unavailable to Christians of an earlier era; hence, we no longer need a physical prop to be assured of the presence and power of the Spirit in our lives.
Paul instructs us as follows: "'Everything is permissible1 --- but not everything is beneficial. 'Everything is permissible' --- but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God --- even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." (1 Cor. 10:23,24,31-33; 11:1) What was Paul's response to his physical problem? "...there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'" (2 Cor. 12:7-9) And what did he recommend for Timothy, who was also troubled? "Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses." (1 Tim. 5:23) Paul also refers to leaving Trophimus sick in Miletus. (2 Tim. 4:20)
In light of the disagreement among scholars and failing to find a compelling Scriptural mandate concerning a doctrine of faith healing, it seems prudent to allow for a divergence of views to coexist while recognizing the possible validity of those which differ from our own.
