The True Story of Coca-Cola's Origin

One day in the middle of the forest, somewhere in the eastern United States, various chemicals began collecting in a pool at the bottom of a huge cavern. As the weather began to change, a strong wind began to mix the chemicals thus causing a chemical reaction resulting in a black, bubbly liquid.

To further complicate matters in a separate pool other chemcials, namely aluminum, were coming together to form what appeared to be a container of some sort? What happened next was nothing short of miraculous - the wind swept up the black liquid depositing it inside the container creating a vacuum that caused the container to seal. Almost immediately colored liquids began falling from the sky landing on the container creating various patterns and shapes.

A hunter who was out in the woods happened by the location that all of these mysterious events took place - and a shiny red object caught his eye. As he approached the object he saw what appeared to be a sealed cup with the words “Coca-Cola Classic” inscribed on it. He picked it up and it was cool to the touch. The cup said “refreshing,” and being parched from a long day in the woods he decided to try and open the cup and see if he could drink it.

After thoroughly examining the cup he found a small lever on the top, that when lifted applied pressure to the lid of the cup. As he applied more pressure, a “popping” sound was heard and a hole opened up. As he looked inside he could see that his premonitions were correct - there was liquid in there. But he hesitated from drinking it, because it was black (unlike water) and bubbling. Maybe it was poison?

However, curiosity soon overtook him, and he lifted the cup to his mouth and in one fell swoop he devoured the contents. It was good. It wasn’t just good - it was really good! As he looked around there were more and more of these cups on the ground around him. He gathered them up, and hurried for home, forgetting all about the nature of the business that had originally brought him to the woods that day.

In his excitement, he shared his discovery with a friend who encouraged him to recreate the product and sell it. The rest was history.

And that my friends is the honest-to-God true story of how Coca-Cola was created!

Turn The Light On

Imagine, if you will, going into a dark room and trying to gather up all of the darkness and push it out the door. Would you start in the darkest corner, and try to sweep all of the darkness out? Or get a net and try to catch it all? The images create a pretty comical picture - don't they? After all the task would be impossible.

But walk into the same room and simply turn the light on, and immediately the darkness flees! The concept is simple, darkness is vanquished by light, and not vice versa. Darkness is simply the absence of light. So in order to get rid of darkness we have to bring in the light.

Now take those same principles in the natural world and apply them to the spiritual. Why do we keep trying to fight the darkness in our lives by trying to eliminate the it? Our hearts are symbolic of the room that is filled with darkness - sin. We know that the darkness needs to go, so we go in with a baseball bat to beat back it's stranglehold on our lives. The harder we try to eliminate sin from our lives the less effective we become, because we expend all of our energy on fighting something that doesn't exist! Simply put, sin is the absence of God's light in our lives. Granted there are all kinds of vices that help define that darkness, but they cannot be overcome apart from the light of God's power.

What if we simply turned the light on? What if we walked into that room with the presence of God? Wouldn't the darkness/sin have to flee? Once God comes in, there would be no room for anything else. Since darkness is simply the absence of light, in God's presence sin can not abound.

Let's stop trying to catch the darkness and throw it out the door. Instead let's turn the light on, and watch the darkness flee!

43 “When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. 44 Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. 45 Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.” (Matthew 12:43-45)

I Don't Believe In Atheists

Atheists do not exist. They're not real. If there were ever a true atheist, they would not invest so much energy in trying to convince themselves and others that God does not exist. The thought of God consumes them.

If someone claims to be an atheist, I think they're lying. What they're really trying to say is that God let them down, and they can't reconcile how a good God allow such evil.

I simply cannot in good conscience believe in atheists.

Do Not Forbid . . .

There seems to be a lot of judgment within the body of Christ between different denominations, churches and even within churches themselves. The kind of judgment I am referring to here is judgment based upon differences of opinion. Where someone states that someone cannot be a Christian or follower of Christ for differences of opinion, differing interpretations of scripture, etc.

However, I am reminded of Jesus words to his disciples:

38 Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 40 For he who is not against us is on our side. 41 For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward. (Mark 9:38-41)

I think so many times we, as believers, are quick to disassociate with each other or label someone as a heretic or apostate based upon our opinion of them when we don’t have all of the facts. I think of folks who say that well-known personalities are not Christian for any number of reasons. But in fact their “opinion” comes without due diligence. It is based upon something they have heard from a third party like the media or a friend, but in reality they’ve probably never even held a conversation with the subject of their criticism.

I can’t judge whether any of you are right or wrong before the Lord, because I am not personally involved in any of your lives. But my hope in being here is that we can deal with issues, and learn from mistakes made. Our own, and each other’s.

I will say that having personally suffered under the heavy hand of someone in leadership, it has made me re-evaluate my own heart. Most times finding that I was just as guilty (on some level) as the one who wronged me toward someone else.

Hopefully, I am a stronger man for my experience. And hopefully I will not make the same mistake when in similar situations, because except for the grace of God there go I.

It saddens me to see the disunity in the body of Christ at large. We all think that we have the correct way of thinking. That we alone possess God's plan for reaching the lost, when in reality we've simply placed God in a box. We've tied His hands by stating what He will and will not use and do.

I wonder how He feels about our haste to forbid those (who call themselves by His name) from accomplishing God's will simply because they don't follow us?

Insufferable Sins

After reading a book on church discipline where the author suggested that there were certain sins that were considered insufferable, I began wondering if this was true. Are there certain sins that if committed can disqualify someone from church leadership or membership indefinitely? More accurately stated - forever?

I know that there are certain qualifications for those who are to be elders, but once disqualified does that mean forever disqualified? Aren't the gifts and callings of God irrevocable? Didn't I read that too somewhere?

What is an insufferable sin? The book defined it as this:

Insufferable sins, ". . . namely: notorious and aggravating licentiousness. . ." such as ". . .perjury, forgery, grand larceny, absconding in debt, habitual licentiousness, murder, treason, and such like gross violations of moral, civil, and criminal law" merit the ". . .exclusion" of the brother or sister, "without the ceremony of labor, upon the simple and certain ascertainment of the facts." (Link)

The book goes onto suggest that men and women who commit such high offenses should be excluded from the church, and never restored back into the body.

"Some may object to this view as being a course too summary, and as savoring of a spirit too uncompromising and too unforgiving, to accord to the genius of the gospel; and especially in case of real penitence. They may think that a transgression, however atrocious, if there be penitence in the case, should be forgiven; and the member retained in the church." However, "the position that every offender, in case of real penitence for his sin, should be retained in the Church, as well as forgiven, is as impracticable, in point of fact, as it is inconsistent with the universal sense of right." (Link)

This argument is very persuasive and bold. The rule is hard and fast, and doesn't leave any room for adifference of opinion. But is it scriptural?

The book uses the scriptural support of 1 Corinthians 5.

Now the rule given by Paul for one of these cases . . , is found in 1 Cor. 5:13 and is the true rule for all of them.

"Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." (Link)

But that's all the author offers in support of his position on insufferable sins. Everything else seems to be extra-biblical. One man's interpretation of one small passage.

Let's see if the Bible has anything else to say about sin:

Matthew 12:31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.

Mark 3:28 “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter;

Luke 7:47 Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.”

Luke 7:48 Then He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

Romans 4:7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,And whose sins are covered;

Ephesians 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace

Colossians 1:14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

James 5:15 And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1 John 2:12 I write to you, little children, Because your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake.

Ok, I'm going to have to do some more digging. I don't see but only one insufferable sin? And that sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Most scholars are not even in agreement as to what this actually means, so I'm not going to try to define it here.

But the rest of the references seem to imply that everything else is fair game for being washed and covered by the blood? In fact, I think it said that the more grievous the sins we've been forgiven of, the greater our love for the Father will be?

So for all those out there who feel that they are beyond redemption or have been told you are beyond redemption let me share with you the good news - "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men!" And those aren't my words, they're the words of the savior!

Blessings!

Appeasement Theology Is Hinduism

In a conversation with someone regarding their Appeasement Theology, they made a comment about how Jesus was god to the Christian, just as Vishnu was god to the Hindu, just as Allah was god to the Muslim. The man claimed that we were all worshipping the same thing - god.

It was interesting to me his choice of Vishnu in comparison to Jesus. I spent over 6 months living in India, interacting with Hindus, and studying their religion and culture. Vishnu is not Jesus, nor do they reference the same object. Hindus might claim that Vishnu is a god, but they cannot claim that he is Jesus.

Appeasement Theology is nothing more than Hinduism. In the Hindu religion, there is not one way to god or eternal life. There are many. That is the lie of Hinduism. The lie told to the people living in India was that they were all Hindu. There were so many different forms of worship in India, but each were told they were Hindu in an attempt to unite the people. It didn't matter the name of the god by which salvation was found, it was Hinduism. A great big free-for-all.

Vishnu, is not God. He is a false god, just as Baal was in the Old Testament. God makes it perfectly clear that we are to have no other gods before Him. He will not share His glory with another.

Having been to India, and talking with many Hindus, the hardest thing for a Hindu to do is to forsake their numerous gods. They have no trouble accepting Jesus Christ as another god. They put their crucifix on the wall with the rest of their idols.

I remember sharing with one friend about Jesus Christ. I had invited this man to a Bible study we were having. He said he would gladly come. In the course of the conversation he asked me what set Christianity apart from other religions. I said, well Jesus claimed that he was the only way, the only truth and the only life, and that no one comes to the Father (goes to heaven) except through Him.

It was as if I dropped a bomb inside his soul. His temper quickly turned to anger as he cried, “I DON’T BELIEVE THIS! JESUS WAS NOT THE ONLY WAY.” I stood firm in my position that He was, even-though I felt as if he could hit me at any moment. He said through clenched teeth and fists that he would not be attending my Bible study. I advised that was fine, but wanted him to know that he was still invited. He left in a rage, stating that he was not coming over and over again, while I reaffirmed my invitation.

He called me the next day, and asked if he was still invited, which I implied that he was. My friend was the first one there, and was so disruptive that I asked him to step outside. He asked many questions, still vehemently opposed to Jesus' exclusive claim of being the only way.

Ironically, at the end of my 6 months in India, this man was the only real fruit that I remember seeing. Why? Because he was honestly seeking truth.

He came to me one day, and said “I think God spoke to me last night.” I said, “what did he say?” He said, “that he wants me to believe in Jesus.” I said, “what do you think?” He said, “I think that God brought you all the way from the United States so that I might know Him. I think Jesus led me to you, because He wants me to know Him.”

He came to know the Truth. I never tried to convert him, I simply shared with him the Truth. It was the Holy Spirit of God that opened his eyes so that he might see the lie that he had embraced. That lie was Hinduism. That there were many ways to eternal life. My friend had so embraced the lie and made it such a part of his thinking that he appeared willing to go to blows over it.

But when he seriously evaluated the question and the claims, in the end he consented. Why, because he had seen and heard the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE for himself. He had tasted and had seen that the Lord was good!

Appeasement Theology (Part 3)

Appeasement theology is not heresy, but rather apostate. It denies the deity of Christ.

In a conversation with someone recently regarding their apostate views that I've deemed Appeasement Theology, they made the following comment:

". . .I believe no one religion has a monopoly on truth. In the final analysis, we are all blind men trying to explain an elephant. We can only use metaphors, and metaphors are culture-specific symbols.” (Link)

The comment is partially correct in that no one religion has a monopoly on the truth, because truth was and is Jesus Christ. Jesus wasn’t about establishing a religion, He was about establishing a Kingdom. He was not a mere metaphor or symbol. He was God incarnate.

Sadly this kind of thinking has crept even into the church, but it is not Biblically founded. If it is then Jesus was a liar, and not to be trusted. "Never trust a dishonest person to be honest." I believe that this statement is an attempt to pacify men, but castrates the power of the true Gospel.

5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:5-6)

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. (John 10:1)

7 Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.
11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. (John 10:7-11)

There is only one way into eternal life, and that is through the door. The door is Jesus Christ. If you try to get in any other way, except through Him, will find death. Because the door is the WAY. The door is the TRUTH. The door is the LIFE. The door is JESUS the CHRIST! He is the only way.

Jesus was not a cultural metaphor. He came to earth, and walked through history as flesh and blood. He came so that all men everywhere might be saved.

Appeasement Theology (Part 2)

Appeasement Theology sounds good. It's popping up everywhere. It appeals to the masses. It says, "hey you're not wrong. We're all right." It says that any thinking that excludes another way of thinking is bad. If someone claims to present the "truth" then they are evil, because they have claimed a monopoly on "truth." While they claim to know the truth, they claim that everything else is a lie.

It's funny to me, how exclusive this inclusive thinking is. The new tolerance is defined as: "tolerate everything except intolerance." But isn't the except part intolerant?

Appeasement Theology castrates the power of the gospel. Because while Jesus makes an exclusive claim of being the only way, the only truth and the only life, his call to repentance is supposed to go out to all - inclusively. The message itself is not exclusive. The apprehending of eternal life is exclusive to those who will accept His great call. However, the offer is not exclusive.

The power of the Gospel is that it is unique to the one true God. Jesus claims that He alone is the way, the truth, and the life. That no one comes to the Father, except through Him.

Call that exclusive if you want, but I'll call it specific. God is a God of love. His desire is that none should perish, but that all would come to repentance. He's provided a way for all to have life, but it is through His Son.

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (John 7:13-14)

Get A Job!

My mom and I have this ongoing debate about my responsibility to provide for my family.

She says: "the Bible says that if you don't have a job you don't eat!"

But I respond: "I thought it says if you don't work you don't eat?"

In America we think of work as getting a job.

But God’s command is to seek first His Kingdom and His righteousness, AND ALL THESE THINGS SHALL BE ADDED UNTO YOU!

That sounds like good work to me!

The Sinner's Prayer

In CT there is an article entitled "Jesus and the Sinner's Prayer," questioning the current popular view of how to obtain salvation. The sinner's prayer. The article notes that Jesus never invites or instructs someone to pray a "sinner's prayer" or "invite Him into their hearts." In fact in 2 different instances Jesus says to obey the law and you will inherit eternal life?

This answer would be considered heretical in today's modern churches. But yet, it was the very words of Jesus Christ Himself? It seems that faith and works go hand in hand. My question is how can so many Americans claim that they believe in Christ, but yet don't produce any fruit? Maybe we don't really believe?

I've addressed this easy believism in another post entitled: "Saved By Faith? Or Works?," but wanted to reference this article to show that I'm not the only heretic!

Church Discipline (Part 7)

I have come across a book on the web entitled "Manual of Church Discipline" by a Reverend Eleazer Savage. I'm not sure how the book will turn out, but I found some interesting observations just in the first chapter. (If you would like to read the book it can be found here.)

Corrective Church Discipline is "the right treatment of offending members." That is, the application of right principles, in a right spirit, to their wrong conduct. An offending member is one, who has transgressed some law of Christ's kingdom; for, "where there is no law, there is no transgression" no "offence." Offences, as to their magnitude, are to be estimated by the importance of the law violated. Hence, as there are different laws of Christ's kingdom; laws having different degrees of value and importance, just as there are different laws in a State; so there are different kinds of offences; offences of various magnitude; and, of course, requiring different treatment.

Wow! I think that was the same conclusion that I came to in my own independent study of the scriptures. Discipline should only be conducted where there is clear transgression of the law. Without the law there cannot be transgression.
He goes on to discuss 5 varying degrees of transgression. They are as follows:

1. Minor - namely small offences
2. Private - offences that cannot be proven
3. Personal - when one brother injures another brother and there is proof of the injury
4. Public - an offence that injures the entire community equally
5. Insufferable - an offence of such enormity that it requires the immediate removal of the member from the body in order to maintain the honor of the Kingdom

My initial thoughts are that his classification is just and trustworthy. However, as I jumped ahead to Chapter 6, where he deals with insufferable offenses, I had to pause and reflect.
He gives examples of insufferable offenses ranging from civil to criminal offenses. He explains that there is no room for not removing the transgressor from the local body, as the very act they have committed is insufferable. He says that it is for the sake of God's good name.
He cites 1 Corinthians 5:13:

"Put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

and claims that Paul's

"rule for such high offences, is, exclude, without the ceremony of labor, upon the simple and certain ascertainment of the facts."

The offender is not to be tolerated for even an hour.

Even strong manifestations of remorse or sorrow for the crime, must not shield from the stroke of separation.

He goes onto state that although this act seems uncompromising and unforgiving, it follows the "genius of the gospel." He argues that the most atrocious of transgressions should not be excluded from the body even in the event of genuine repentance.
Huh? Am I reading this right? That there are certain sins that are simply insufferable? That there are certain sins to which the directives in Matthew 18 do not even apply?
In the case of 1 Corinthians 5, Paul's directive comes as a result of the fact that the brother is unrepentant. It seems as though the transgressor's sin is common knowledge among the church, even Paul has heard of it! His sin was not insufferable? He was living in sin, and unwilling to repent.
The chapter concludes with the following statement:

And, hence, the position that every offender, in case of real penitence for his sin, should be retained in the Church, as well as forgiven, is as impracticable, in point of fact, as it is inconsistent with the universal sense of right.

What? Am I reading this correctly? I guess he never read Jesus' words about forgiveness? Apparently, God is not as full of grace and mercy as His word proclaims Him to be? Apparently hell will have varying degrees of torture for those who have committed atrocious transgressions!

Appeasement Theology (Part 1)

There is a new form of theology that has been infiltrating even the most conservative of churches, that I believe is not theology at all, but rather apostate. This way of thinking is something I've chosen to deem "Appeasement Theology."

I'm sure that this post will offend a lot of folks who subscribe to this way of thinking, and I'll be accused of all sorts of vileness. Some will say that I am a fundamentalist. Others will claim that what I am about to lay out here is too narrow. Yet others will say that I am egotistical to think that I can claim a monopoly on the truth.

But, truth is not relative. It is what it is. In fact, it is more than that. Truth is the person of Jesus Christ our Lord. He was absolute.

So what is Appeasement Theology?

Appeasement Theology is the idea that Christ is not the only way to enter into everlasting life. That there are in fact many ways to get to heaven. That Jesus was a mere symbol and model for the Jewish culture, just as Vishnu is the same symbol for Hindu culture, as Allah is the same symbol for Islamic culture. That there is not one way to get to heaven. That there are indeed many roads and many ways. That God is infinite, and cannot be limited to one form of expression.

Many people who preach this apostasy actually refer to themselves Christians. And while they hold to their faith in Christ to redeem their souls, they also believe that others who do not profess Christ will also be redeemed.

I can see the logical reasoning behind this point of view. It is to appease the masses, so as not to offend those who have put their hope in a lie. It sounds good. It surely won't offend anyone - except the offensive fundamentalists who claim that Jesus is the only way. But is it true?

Let's look at some of the exclusive claims of Christianity and Jesus Christ:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6)

1 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. (John 10:1)

7 Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.
11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. (John 10:7-11)

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)

In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. (1 John 4:9)

10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:10-12)

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, (1 Thessalonians 5:9)

Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. (2 Timothy 2:10)

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:12-19)

Whew! That is a lot of pretty exclusive claims stating that Jesus Christ is the only hope of attaining salvation! Now either Jesus was lying when He said those things? Or someone was lying saying that He said those things? Or He was telling the truth, and meant exactly what He said?

Opinions

The other day I had lunch with someone I would consider a friend. The conversation knowingly steered to all of my personal "woes" right now as they are many. It seems as though the storm is raging on every front.

I considered the conversation to be one of safety as my friend had been previously very understanding of my troubles. He even said that it wasn't his place to judge, which I would naturally take issue with, but then he voiced his opinion.

He became almost angry and aggressive at stating his displeasure of my actions. Reiterating many times that it wasn't his place to judge me, because his opinion didn't really matter. When I pressed him on the issue, he said that my mind was already made up, which was why his opinion didn't matter.

I am not opposed to someone judging me, as I cannot see myself clearly at times. I think it is of necessity that we bring others into our world to help us from becoming fruity.

But as I listened to my friend's assessment of my situation, based upon the 2 minute condensed summary of the past 3 months, I felt sick to my stomach. I felt the need to defend myself, but decided against it. The reason being, that it was already a lost case. My friend, although he claimed to be an unbiased listener, proved not to be so.

I felt his judgment despicable. Why? Not because he was wrong per se, but rather because he had failed to execute due diligence before passing judgment. He had made assumptions of my situation without even bothering to ask me if they were true. He had determined me guilty without honestly examining the facts.

I felt his judgment despicable, because I sat there and suffered the brunt of his attack, I felt as if I was looking into a mirror. How many times have I judged other the same way? How many times have I passed judgment on friends and family without even being willing to help bear their burden. My self-righteousness began to stink, and I vowed then and there to be more compassionate to others.

My opinion is simply that. An opinion. Opinions are not necessarily based on truth. That is why we love opinions in this country, because they are the quick way out. We don't have to get involved. We don't have to get our own hands dirty. We can simply stand at a distance and give our opinion on a situation or worse yet a life!

Once our opinion is rendered we rarely if ever follow up with those who are in need of restoration. After all, wasn't our job just to deliver the message?

All of this talk about opinions, maybe we should take a moment to stop and define what the word actually means? The dictionary says this:

Main Entry: opin·ion

Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpin-yən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
Date: 14th century
1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b: approval, esteem
2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b: a generally held view
3 a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

Look closely at the second definition. A belief not as strong as positive knowledge. Is that not what my friend offered me? His belief? His belief, but not necessarily positive knowledge?

Is that not what we offer others every time we give our opinion? Isn't that what we generally hold people accountable to - our opinion of them?

Brothers and sisters this ought not to be so! The very idea of judging someone this way has become despicable to me!

God forgive me for the times that I have judged others in this manner. Fill me with your grace and mercy that I might look on others with Your eyes of compassion!

John 7:24 - Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

Why You Want A King (Part 2)

So you want a king? I think we all desire a king or a sovereign if you will. But the truth is everyone must have a sovereign, because everyone must have a law system. In order to have a law system, you must have someone with authority that gave and supports that law system. Hence the need for a sovereign - otherwise known as a king.

The need is very real in all of us. Even the hardest of hearts has determined who is going to be their sovereign. Yes, even they operate under a law system.

But getting back to the point of this post- why do we want a king? Why did the Israelites want a king? Why did they prefer a mediator in Moses over direct communication with the living God?

The answer I believe is rather simplistic. We don't want to take any personal responsibility. Think about it, if I am simply following the directives of my pastor, president, boss, etc., and I fail, then who is to blame? Me or my leader?

I heard someone once say, "If the pastor told me (and my family) to move to the mission field (any country) I would do it?" I asked, "Wouldn't you pray about it first?" Their reply was "No." They explained that they (/we) were to submit to authority and not question any directive. Huh?

As I thought about that conversation, and turned the question introspectively, I came to the conclusion that was what I too was desiring. Someone to come along and tell me what to do. To give me identity and purpose. Wouldn't it be so much simpler if the pastor told all of us what we were supposed to do?

But then there is the thing that rages in us, that screams: "Who are they to tell me what to do?" So which response is correct? Either?

The reason I wanted someone to tell me what to do was because it removed personal responsibility from me. Forget the pain of trying to figure it all out. No longer did I have to pray and listen to find out God's will, I could just get it from a man! And if that man turned out to be wrong, then it was his fault not mine. After all, he was the one who was supposed to hear from God!

We want to take all of the credit for our successes, but pass all of the blame for our failures. It is an issue of cowardice and sloth. Blame it on our fast-food, drive through culture if you want, but we want a king. Because a king will give us something to pin our personal failure upon. That way if God gets angry with us for our moral failure, we can shift the spotlight to someone else. What is it about personal responsibility that we all avoid it like the plague?

How many pastors have been nailed to the cross, for the sins of the flock? How many sheep have gone astray only to point their finger back to their local shepherd? "Well, if the pastor had been more involved in my life, I wouldn't have fallen into sin."

The truth is you want a king, because it's so much easier. It was so much easier for the children of Israel to hear God's words through Moses. It was faster and required much less of them personally. They wanted to take credit for the victories they experienced, but who got the blame when things went wrong? Moses.

Accept personal responsibility. Acknowledge the true King as your own. Take the time and effort to find out what He's been trying to say to you - no matter how difficult His words may be.

*In Progress*

Why You Want A King (Part 1)

You may say to yourself that you don't want a king. You'd rather be king then to serve someone else. That may be true, however as a collective people, I believe that we desire a king.

The story of Israel's first king is found in 1 Samuel 5. The Israelites went to Samuel and demanded a king so that they could be like their neighbors. After all, all of the surrounding countries were ruled by a king. Why not the Israelites too? They were tired of being different. They wanted to be just like the other nations. They wanted a king!

5 and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

Samuel was heartbroken, but not as heartbroken as God. God said, "No Samuel, they have not rejected you, they have rejected me." God wanted to be their king. He was their king for hundreds of years.

6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.

God tried to convince the people not to force His hand on the issue, but the stubbornness of the people prevailed. He warned them what having a king would mean.

9 Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”
10 So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who asked him for a king. 11 And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. 14 And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. 16 And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. 18 And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”

In the end, God appeased their desire, and gave them their king. A king of the people from the people. A real man's man. King Saul.

19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”

As we look at this story, it is pretty easy for us to sit back and judge the stupidity of the people in their demand for a king. Look at what it brought them. Nothing but trouble. God's words of warning would prove true almost immediately after the new king's anointing.

But, have we progressed and become so much more enlightened than the children of Israel in our modern day lives?

Nicolaitans

But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. (Revelation 2:6)

Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. (Revelation 2:15)

So what was this hated doctrine of the Nicolaitans? It must have been pretty bad for God to say He hated it twice.

The root of the word Nicolaitans comes from Greek nikao, to conquer or overcome, and laos, which means people and which the word laity comes from. The two words together especially means the destruction of the people and refers to the earliest form of what we call a priestly order or clergy which later on in church history divided people and allowed for leadership other than those led by the spirit of the risen Lord. A good translation of Nicolaitan would be “those who prevail over the people.” (Link)

Is this not what we’ve been talking about? Our misunderstanding of power and authority? That we believe that our authority somehow elevates us above the laity?

We are all on the same road, and although we may fill an office within the body that doesn’t exempt us from being a mere man.

Before we go any further, maybe we should take a moment to define hierarchy.

Main Entry: hi·er·ar·chy
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ierarchie rank or order of holy beings, from Anglo-French jerarchie, from Medieval Latin hierarchia, from Late Greek, from Greek hierarchEs
1 : a division of angels
2 a : a ruling body of clergy organized into orders or ranks each subordinate to the one above it; especially : the bishops of a province or nation
b :church government by a hierarchy
3 : a body of persons in authority
4 : the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic, social, or professional standing; also : the group so classified
5 : a graded or ranked series

God hates hierarchies among men and especially among His people. Hierarchies deal with worth or value. They place more importance on those in positions of leadership. But in the Kingdom, every person has the same worth and value in God’s eyes. He shows personal favoritism to no man.

God never intended for men to have dominion over other men. God gave men dominion over the earth, animals and plants, but did not give them dominion over each other.

In the body of Christ, we’ve been accused of portraying that we are somehow superior to those who do not share our faith. Even within our ranks, we distinguish those who hold offices over those who don’t. While we say that we are not superior, our actions state otherwise.

As I was talking with a pastor the other day he made this comment:

Jesus Christ alone is our (pastors) coach/captain/king/ whatever analogy that we want to use for the moment. Elders follow the Lord, and in doing so support their pastor through counsel, work, and prayer.

He was in essence saying that pastors are accountable only to God, but was quick to add clarity to his words with:

Ugh - now I’m reading my post & thinking how that may be misconstrued. Language can be so limiting sometimes.

Maybe it would be sufficient to merely say that counsel from the elders includes the gamut from edification to reproof when appropriate.

The truth is, our words can be misconstrued and often are. But I think even deeper than that lies a root of pride within all of us, that if not subjected to the Spirit allows us to come to secretly believe that we are indeed above those that we lead, and most definitely above those who are without any faith in Christ at all.

When we say that we are God’s chosen people, other’s hear us saying that we’re better than they. When we say that pastors are to lead the sheep, we believe that we’ve been chosen by God over the sheep.

We create systems with chains of command fashioned after the world, but far removed from Jesus’ example of laying down His life as a sacrifice and in service to all. We believe that we can/could really do something for God if we were just given a title. If we would just be recognized as having more worth than our fellow brothers and sisters.

While there is no doubt that there are different levels of authority within the Kingdom, holding an office of authority is a fearful thing rather than a boastful thing. God requires more from those who serve in a position of leadership. They will be accountable for how they served His body, in addition to their own actions.

The Nicolaitan heresy believed that those who held offices within the body of Christ were lords over the people. They believed that it was their duty to lead, and that it was the duty of the people to be subservient to them. The Nicolaitans believed that they were as priests subject to God alone.

But God hates this kind of thinking, because he wants to be the top. He refuses to share His glory with anyone. He sent His only son so that we might become a priesthood of believers. So that each of us through our faith, could have divine access to the holy of holies without fear or the need for a middleman.

This is a little raw at present, so I may refine it at a later time.

The Case of Touchy Tom

Christianity Today has recently posted an article on a modern-day excommunication within a baptist church. The article can be found here.

As you read through the article, it appears Tom’s membership was put to a vote by the general assembly. This in my mind seems inappropriate, although seemed to have produced the correct results in this instance.

What I don’t like about this method of excommunicating someone is that the vote may become a popular vote. Meaning that the person’s discipline could hinge on his/her popularity rather than with the nature of their transgression.

It also appears as if the local body, dropped the ball in delaying the disciplinary action. The actions should have been taken long before they were, for the sake of the safety and purity of the women in the congregation.

Church discipline is not a pleasant process by any stretch of the imagination to either side involved. It’s purpose however is always to seek the repentance of the transgressor, and offer the hope of redemption.

The Moses Model

On simplemindedpreacher, there was a discussion about a form of church governance called the Moses Model. In the Moses Model, the senior pastor serves in the same role and function as Moses did, with the elders and board, being subject to his leadership.

I have a problem with the Moses Model, because I don’t think it was quite what God had in mind.

My problem with the “Moses Model” is this: While it seems very Biblical, and is - I’m not sure this was God’s ideal form of government. I say that because it was the people, not God who chose to be led by Moses instead of God Himself. God’s desire was always to be the one to lead His people. This was evidenced at Mt. Sinai when God wanted to speak to the people, and the people said “NO! Moses, we don’t want God to speak to us. You speak to Him and get back to us with what He says.”

18And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. 19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. 20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. (Exodus 20:18-20)

This broke the heart of God. He settled for the “Moses Model” because the people refused to acknowledge God Himself as their leader.

This is portrayed again in 1 Samuel when the people go to Samuel wanting a king (just like the heathens). God’s heart was broken once again. Why? Because the people once again rejected God as their leader in return for flesh and blood. God again compromises by consenting to the desire of the people, but not without sternly warning of the consequences of their king.

We (as a people) want a king. We want a Moses. We (as individuals) want to be king. The desire for a king is the same as the Israelites desire not to hear from God face to face. It removes individual responsibility for self-government.

In any model, we can pin our failures as a people on the king (pastor). We all want to take credit for success when it is achieved. But let’s say someone in leadership screws up. What happens then? Someone brings the darkness to light. Some jump on the kill-the-king bandwagon, while others seek to justify themselves through their defensiveness.

This is not to diminish the role of pastor, apostle, prophet or teacher in any light. But we have got to realize that these people are not superior to the sheep. They are sheep themselves. Woe to us as pastors, if we think we’re above being pastored even by the lowliest of the saints.
The purpose of the offices of the Body is for one thing: to equip the saints for the work of the ministry so that God might receive the utmost glory.

The tension is that God has chosen to work through men. But in His kingdom, being the king means laying your life down and becoming a stepping stone for all those you are leading. Being king means you’re going to get stepped on. In America we talk about climbing (up) the corporate ladder; but in the Kingdom, Jesus commands those who are in leadership to be in the lowliest of positions. At the bottom holding the ladder for others.

God does give authority to men, I won’t deny it. There is a need for pastors, I won’t argue that point either. But as a whole (for the church of America), we need a paradigm shift. We need to re-evaluate why God gave us authority, and where the power to back up that authority comes from.

So, was the “Moses Model” God’s plan or the people’s? Why do we continually lay claim to the authority of God while His power is strangely absent from our midst?

Authority Refined

Ok. I keep getting these answers for what authority is for. Because the question remains: “authority for what?” I want to keep a running list of the purposes of the authority that we receive from God.

This post will remain a work in progress, and subject to being updated from time to time.

I want to make it perfectly clear that the primary purpose of authority is to bring or give glory to God. Everything else would be secondary purposes that should serve only to fulfill the primary purpose.

Authority to:

• Give glory to God.
• Extend grace to the fallen.
• Lead from darkness to light.
• Open the prison door and set the captives free.
• Bind up the broken hearted.
• Serve.
• Heal the sick.
• Raise the dead.
• Cast out demons.
• Judge.
• Seek repentance.

Conversely, Authority is NOT:

• To be lords over others.
• To have dominion over men.
• For selfish gain.
• To control others.

I want to add scripture references in the future. Does anyone have any more?