The Church's Finances

Every week, the plate is passed around the congregation.

Every week, the funds so collected are doled out according to the budget plan, paying salaries, electric bills, mortgages, TV show expenses, and if anything is left over, maybe an orphan's home or a few dollars into a local person's overdue medical bills.

That's the modern way of handling the church's money.

What was it like in the first century church?

The very first time a collection of money is mentioned in the church is Acts 2:44-45, which says:

And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.

Notice what is done with the money: it is shared with anyone having need. (I believe the context limits that "anyone" to "anyone within the group", but I could be wrong.)

And what of the very next example? It's in Acts 4:23ff:

Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but instead they held everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on all of them. For there was not a needy person among them, because all those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet. This was then distributed to each person as anyone had a need.

Notice again what the Scriptures teach: money given to the church is to be distributed to those who have a need.

What about other examples?

The next example is in Acts 6, where we find that the distribution to the needy has become such a pressing matter that a special group of ministers ("deacons") are appointed to handle the day-to-day details, freeing the apostles (who had previously been responsible for the task) to do their job of preaching. The apostles were doing the preaching; the deacons were distributing the incoming funds to the needy, not to paying the church's bills.

1 Timothy 5 lays out some guidelines for this distributive effort, and in the process makes it clear that paying the bills of your own family takes precedence over other expenditures, but if you can't, then the church should kick in. Someone who doesn't provide for his own family is worse than an infidel according to this passage. And those who receive funds from the church should be known for good works.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 reiterates this last point:

If anyone isn't willing to work, he should not eat.

Titus 3:14 indicates that a main thrust of our efforts is to meet the cases of urgent need. As The Message puts it:

Our people have to learn to be diligent in their work so that all necessities are met (especially among the needy) and they don't end up with nothing to show for their lives.

The very purpose of having a job is not to give to the church to build a nicer building, but to give something to the needy, according to Ephesians 4:28:

... [H]e must do honest work with his own hands, so that he has something to share with anyone in need.

And again, Paul reminds the church in Romans 12:13:

Share with God's people who are in need.

Even that well-known passage from 1 Corinthians 16, read so often from the pulpit to persuade Christians to give to the work of the church, is ALL about giving to the needy, and not at all about paying church bills. This is clear from verse 1:

Now about the collection for God's people ....

Any other use of this passage for justification of doing anything except collecting for God's people, no matter how good those tasks may be, is a twisting of the scripture.

Now, let me make it clear that the church does have a responsibility to pay its bills, including the salaries of its staff. But I believe we've turned the pyramid upside down; the base of the pyramid, the bulk of church finances, should be going toward helping Christians meet their financial needs, with the tip, the small portion, going toward church bills. We've inverted that pyramid, and have done so at the risk of hearing these words from Jesus (Matt 25):

Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

They also will answer, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?"

He will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Birds Not Evolved From Dinos

From EvolutionNews.org:

Archaeopteryx isn’t the only evolutionary icon losing its claim as the ancestor of birds. In recent months we’ve seen paleontologists increasingly arguing that the entire clade of dinosaurs should no longer be considered ancestral to birds. As the WSJ article states:

There are lingering doubts that birds today are descendants of dinosaurs. Researchers at Oregon State University recently argued that the distinctive anatomy that gives birds the lung capacity needed for flight means it is unlikely that birds descended from dinosaurs like archaeopteryx and its kin. Their findings were published in June in the Journal of Morphology.

As paleontologist John Ruben of Oregon State was quoted saying when his article was published:

But old theories die hard, Ruben said, especially when it comes to some of the most distinctive and romanticized animal species in world history.

"Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions," Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that "some scientists disagree."

Why Live Through Suffering?

JOHN_A_DESIGNER writes at Telic Thoughts:

The idea of heaven is actually a later development in Jewish and Christian theology. Read the book of Job. The closest that Job gets to the idea of an after life is the question: “If a man dies, will he live again?” So then, what is the book of Job really about? It is about a man confronted with severe suffering who is struggling to find the meaning in the midst of his suffering. It is a struggle between two choices: “curse God and die” or “though He slay me I will trust him.” Faith is not about the after life. Faith is about this world. What faith will I need in heaven where there is no suffering or challenges?

On the other hand, heaven is always presented in the Bible as a reward. How can it be a reward if it is not preceded by challenges?

Interesting thoughts....

Should Christians Sneak Candy Into Movie Theaters?

The following was written by Sam Stinson on the Church_Of_Christ Yahoo!Groups list.


"You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another."
(Leviticus, 19:11, NASB)

Long before I became a Christian, I remember my family taking me to movies when I was a young child. We hardly ever bought popcorn, soft drinks, or candy at the movie theater--in fact I can't remember a single time when we did. When I became a teenager I remedied this by going to dollars stores and purchasing cheap boxes of candy and hiding them in the pockets of my pants, my coat, or on one of my friends. I justified this behavior to myself by saying, "I have a right to eat whatever I want and to buy it from whomever I choose." I also remember thinking, "The cost of food in movie theaters is six times what it is in other stores! Why should I not try to save money?"

Years later, after becoming a Christian, I realized that this behavior was not in keeping for a Christian. Here are thoughts along this line for your consideration.

1. Sneaking candy into movie theaters is a violation of a posted theater policy. I've never encountered a movie theater which permitted its patrons to bring in food or drinks from home. Most of us would never knowingly bring a video camera into a theater and tape the movie we're watching in order to distribute it illegally on the Internet. But sneaking candy into the movies is equally dishonest. Why is that? Because knowingly acting in violation of any business's policy and pretending that I'm not is intentionally dealing falsely with others, a clear violation of scripture as noted above.

2. Sneaking candy into movie theaters destroys the theater's ability to make a profit. Have you ever heard someone say, "The concessions is where theaters make their money!" In many cases this is true. If I am truly eating something I am not authorized to bring, based on my acceptance of the agreement to not bring outside food into a theater, I have deprived the theater of its profit. If this is indeed stealing, Christians should cease from this practice. (Eph. 4:28)

3. Sneaking candy into movie theaters creates a bad example for others. Christians and non-Christians, especially children, can be influenced by the behavior of others. If others see us doing this practice, they will likely imitate it. If it is something that causes us to sin, it may cause them to sin when they do as we do.

4. It is often the "little things" that make Christians look like hypocrites to the world. A Christian might say, "I've never murdered, or committed adultery, or cheated on my taxes." Very well indeed. But one who stumbles in one point of honesty has violated the truth. "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much." (Luk. 16:10)

Biblical Profanity

Over the past few years, I've begun to come to the conclusion that the translators who bring the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English have skewed their results sometimes according to their own sensibilities rather than accurately portraying what the text says.

One such case is in Philipians 3:8, wherein Paul is claiming that in contrast to the value of knowing Christ Jesus, all other things are "rubbish".

This word "rubbish" (skuvbalon) seems to be a sanitized version of what the actual word means. Here's a summary from Daniel B. Wallace:

That skuvbalon took on the nuance of a vulgar expression with emotive connotations (thus, roughly equivalent to the English “crap, s**t”) is probable in light of the following considerations: (1) its paucity of usage in Greek literature (“Only with hesitation does literature seem to have adopted it from popular speech” says Lang in TDNT 7:445); (2) it is used frequently in emotionally charged contexts (as are its verbal cognates) in which the author wishes to invoke revulsion in his audience; (3) there is evidence that there were other, more common and more acceptable terms referring to the same thing (in particular, the agricultural term koprov and the medical term perivsswma); (4) diachronically, the shock value of the term seems to have worn off through the centuries; and (5) a natural transfer of the literal to a metaphorical usage, in which disgust, revulsion, or worthlessness are still in view, argues for this meaning as well. Nevertheless, that its shock value was not fully what “s**t” would be is suggested in the fact that in the Hellenistic period (c. 330 BCE-330 CE) the word was also used on occasion for “gleanings” or “table scraps.”

(From http://bible.org/article/brief-word-study-skuvbalon - Go read the entire article for a fuller treatment)

In other words, it appears that the word which God inspired is somewhere between "crap" and "sh*t".

Offends our sensibilities, doesn't it? But if it's true (and it seems to be), it is what it is.

The Church's Educational Responsibility

A year or so I came across this passage:

He ... must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.
-- Ephesians 4:28

More recently I came across this one:

Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.
-- 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12

It seems to me that a fundamental goal of Christian maturity is to have the necessary resources to:

1) not be a burden on other people,

and

2) to help relieve the burdens other people have.

I think it may be time for the church to start providing its members with the resources to do these two things. That means encouraging young people to finish school and get a college education, and to avoid derailments of those plans (like getting pregnant or dropping out), and to finance education of those who missed their first opportunity while young, and perhaps to even provide career counseling.

Many of my church peers would scoff at such a notion, believing that the business of the church is to "spread the Gospel", and not to get wrapped up in "social issues". But if I'm reading those passages above correctly, I think it may be time to at least start thinking in these directions.

One nation! Under God! Indivisible?!

There's a lot of discussion about the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I have no qualm with that phrase. I would, however, be disturbed for it to be removed, for no matter how often the claim is made that "God is dead", I'm convinced He is alive and well and in control, and the nation that acknowledges Him will be blessed above the one that does not.

But I can't recite the Pledge as it is commonly known. I have a problem with the phrase "indivisible".

The very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence, which is the basis for the very existence of the United States of America, emphasizes this right to separate. It says:

When ... it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them ... and to assume ... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, [it's only respectful to say why].

And then the next paragraph states that when government gets too big for its britches,

it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government....

The War of Northern Aggression (aka The War Between the States, aka The Civil War) was fought over this very principle (the issue of slavery was just the trigger). The South had had enough, and had dissolved the political bands with their Northern brethren, but the North illegally forced, at gunpoint, the South to remain.

In this war, the South was doing the exact same thing the original 13 Colonies had done almost a hundred years earlier, and the North was doing the exact same thing the English had done. The only difference was that in the latter war, the captors won and Freedom, Independence, was lost.

History is written by the victors, and so are cultural bindings such as the Pledge of Allegiance; thus we have the phrase. But I'm standing on the founding principles of the United States of America. Thus I recite:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

We're still one nation; that's how I prefer it. But the nation is legally not "indivisible".

Be One

All Paul is saying is to meet each others' needs. He's not saying no one can ever say "no", or even that your husband has control of your body. He's saying that your body is his, and his is yours, and that you are "one". The Hebrew word behind this concept is "echad"; it's the same word used in the Shema, which observant Jews recite every day: "Hear, Oh Israel! YHWH is God; YHWH is one!" (although they substitute "Lord", Adonai, for the actual God-given textual rendering of YHWH). The first time this word is used, it is used to join the evening and the morning into a complete whole, Day Echad. The next time it is used, it is used to join a man and a woman into an Echad flesh. Yahshua declared himself and YHWH to be Echad.

The ideal is that a husband and wife are Echad, One, and that what pleases one should please the other. If you don't have that with your husband, sex ain't gonna fix it, and the lack of sex ain't gonna hurt it.

Notes in a private message concerning 1 Corinthians 7.

Confess Your Sins One to Another

James 5:16 says:

Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed.

Two things:

1) It does not say, "Confess your sins to the whole church", although I believe that when the sin is public, the confession should be public. Rather it says confess your sins "to one another"; perhaps the implication is that we should have one-on-one relationships in which we feel comfortable opening up to each other totally; you can't do that with a large group; you can do that with one, maybe two or three, intimate friends. I think there may be an important psychologically-healthy injunction here.

2) It does not say, "Confess that you have sinned" to one another. Rather, it says, "Confess your sins". It seems to me that we are short-circuiting the Biblical healing process when we go before the church and say, "I've sinned, please pray for me", when what we should say is, "I've sinned by X, please pray for me".

For example, let's say I cussed out the check-out girl at the store as I bought condoms in preparation for a night with a prostitute. The next Sunday morning I go forward and confess, "I've sinned, please pray for me". Should the church assume I'm repenting of abusing the check-out girl, or for fornicating, or both, or neither? For the forgiveness of which sin(s) should the church pray?

Maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

The Context Behind 1 Corinthians 16:1-2

Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a severe famine throughout the Roman world. This took place during the time of Claudius. So each of the disciples, according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brothers who lived in Judea. This they did, sending it to the elders by means of Barnabas and Saul.

Acts 11:28-30

When James, Cephas, and John, recognized as pillars, acknowledged the grace that had been given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas, [agreeing] that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. [They asked] only that we would remember the poor, which I made every effort to do.

Gal 2:9-10

Now about the collection for the saints: you should do the same as I instructed the Galatian churches. On the first day of the week, each of you is to set something aside and save to the extent that he prospers, so that no collections will need to be made when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you recommend by letter to carry your gracious gift to Jerusalem. If it is also suitable for me to go, they will travel with me.

1 Cor 16:1-4

... the churches of Macedonia ... on their own ... begged us insistently for the privilege of sharing in the ministry to the saints....

Now I am giving an opinion on this because it is profitable for you, who a year ago began not only to do something but also to desire it. But now finish the task as well, that just as there was eagerness to desire it, so there may also be a completion from what you have. For if the eagerness is there, it is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have. It is not that there may be relief for others and hardship for you, but it is a question of equality — at the present time your surplus is [available] for their need, so that their abundance may also become [available] for your need, that there may be equality. As it has been written:

The person who gathered much did not have too much,

and the person who gathered little did not have too little.

Thanks be to God who put the same diligence for you into the heart of Titus. For he accepted our urging and, being very diligent, went out to you by his own choice. With him we have sent the brother who is praised throughout the churches for his gospel ministry. And not only that, but he was also appointed by the churches to accompany us with this gift that is being administered by us for the glory of the Lord Himself and to show our eagerness [to help]. We are taking this precaution so no one can find fault with us concerning this large sum administered by us.

2 Cor 8

Now, however, I am traveling to Jerusalem to serve the saints; for Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution to the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.

Rom 15:25-26

God Has Gifted E With Wisdom

And that's all I have to say about that.

The Changing Text of the Bible

It's been a staple of the hermeneutics with which I grew up that the Bible does not change over time. However, in recent weeks, I've come to question that doctrine.

Think about the prophecy of the Virgin Birth. In Isaiah 7, the enemies of Israel have plotted against her, but God prophesies that by the time Isaiah gets married and has a kid and the kid is a few years old, the enemies will have been destroyed. Here's the text of verses 14-16:

Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel. By the time he learns to reject what is bad and choose what is good, he will be eating butter and honey. For before the boy knows to reject what is bad and choose what is good, the land of the two kings you dread will be abandoned.

For hundreds of years, readers of the Bible understood this to be a prophecy which was fulfilled in Isaiah's son.

But then, Yahshua (Jesus) was born of the virgin, Mary (Luke 2:26ff):

In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man named Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.

and suddenly this prophecy took on a new meaning, as explained by Matthew in Matt 1:20-25:

Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: See, the virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son ....

As far as humans were concerned, the meaning of the text changed: for hundreds of years it only referred to Isaiah's wife and son; now, it also refers to Mary and Yahshua.

This idea of "dual fulfillment" of prophecy is well-accepted by many Bible scholars, but what seems amazing to me about it is that it sometimes means that the text has changed its meaning, when viewed from a human standpoint. It might be argued that God had always intended both meanings, but from a human viewpoint, the text changed meaning after the second fulfillment gave it the new meaning.

This is not the only example we have of the Scriptures not having a fixed meaning. In Zechariah 11, Zechariah is paid low wages of 30 pieces of silver, and God tells him to "throw it to the potter". I doubt very seriously that anyone reading that passage took any other meaning from that passage until Judas threw away his payment of 30 silver pieces for betraying Yahshua (Matt 27:3-10).

These are inspired examples of the meaning of a text not being fixed. But the process still goes on within the church, perhaps by the Holy Spirit's leading. For example, Isaiah 62:2 prophesies that the nation of Israel will inherit a new name. The immediate fulfillment, and probably the only meaning taken from this passage for hundreds of years, is that God was using a poetic means to tell the nation that it would no longer be called "Deserted" or "Desolate", but rather "I delight in Her" and "Married" (62:4). But thousands of years later, the church often points to this promise of a "new name", and sees Acts 11:26 as the fulfillment of that promise, in which "the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch". To these Christians, the meaning of Isaiah 62:2 has changed from the black-and-white meaning given in 62:4, to that given in Acts 11:26.

The conclusion is that the meaning of the Scripture to humans has not remained fixed: it has changed, and in at least some cases (two of the above three examples), by inspiration.

What does this mean? I don't know. I just find it interesting.

Divisive Issues

A writer on an email list recently wrote the following, which makes me go "Hmm-mm."

===

Practices found within the Church of Christ/Sign Out Front sects leading to sectarianism, division and strife.

Instrumental music
Women publicly involved in the assembly.
Rhythmic clapping during songs.
Lifting holy hands
Applause to show approval
Wine in lieu of welch's grape juice
Kitchens in the "church" building
Acceptance of the divorced.
Praise teams
Full time pulpit preachers
Unqualified elders
Unqualified deacons
Unqualified teachers
Sunday School
Number of cups
What age women cease to teach children.
Singing during the Lord's Supper.
The Holy Spirit/the written word/the Spirit being active
Yard sales at the building
Paid staff
Paid song leader
Meeting in homes w/o elder present.
Meeting in "church buildings VS Home assembies
Job description for pulpit preacher
Use of the church's building
Weddings in building with instruments
How to care for orphans
"Sound" teachings
Sound systems ;)
Shaped notes VS no notes
Marriage divorce and remarriage
Re-baptisms
Lord's supper before sermon.
Color of the song leader
Interracial marriage
Bus ministry
Gospel meetings
Guest speakers
Stained glass windows
Steeples
Children's church
Sunday school literature.
Bible translations
Suit and ties
Women wearing pants
Bossy wives of elders
Color of the carpet
Tract rack material
Testimonies
Paint trim color of the building
Appropriate song selection
Dimming lights during Lord's supper
Vacation Bible School
Church owned vehicles
Picture directories
Lawn maintenance
Cross on top of Lord's supper trays

I listed some that I have experienced or read about that has caused strife and a divisive spirit resulting in many cases of followers leaving in anger.

Now why can't we understand that Paul told us to be of ONE MIND and taught "Unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace"?

No wonder we have problems when we "focus on problems" instead of focusing on unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

Profound Realizations

It's sad when you know there's something profound on the edge of your brain but you just can't quite access it, and therefore have no clue what it is.

Eve the Complement

From OneInJesus:

Obviously, God’s calling Eve ‘ezer does not mean that Eve is subordinate to Adam or that women are subordinate to men.

Perhaps our difficulty in interpreting ‘ezer can be better seen by noticing how we use “helper” in English. We speak of “mother’s little helper,” a “plumber’s helper,” being a “good helper.” In current English, “helper” carries the connotation of a subordinate — even a child.

Thus, if I were drowning, I’d call out, “Help!” But I wouldn’t refer to the person who rescued me as my “helper.” My rescuer truly helped me, but calling him “helper” would be too condescending — even belittling.

But these thoughts are utterly foreign to the Hebrew ‘ezer. There is no condescension in the Hebrew word at all, so that “helper” (or “help meet,” as in the King James Version) is truly a clumsy translation. In other verses, ‘ezer is used in the sense of “rescuer” or “liberator.” The word is also used in the sense of “one who fights alongside against a common foe.” “Comrade” or “ally” would come close to the sense in many contexts. Thus, the psalmist sings that God is Israel’s help, not a mere helper — but an ally so powerful that Israel must prevail.

When the United States’ armed forces came to the rescue of Kuwait, we were there to help, but we were not helpers — the U.S. military was an ally, a comrade, and an overwhelming superior to any military capability that Kuwait could have mustered. This is the sense ‘ezer used with respect to God and His relationship to His people.

“Complement” is therefore a proper if not excellent translation.

Doing What Seems Right in Your Own Eyes

Many raised in the church have developed an automatic, Pavlovian response to variants of the phrase:

Every man did what seemed right in his own eyes.

Our automatic response is to associate this concept with evil. And this view is not necessarily inaccurate, but then again, it's not entirely accurate either.

The phrase, or something like it, is found in several places within the Bible, and it means different things in different contexts.

For example, in Deuteronomy 12:8 (HCSB), we read:

You are not to do as we are doing here today; everyone [is doing] whatever seems right in his own eyes.

The context here is that Moses is giving instructions to the Israelites as to how they are to worship YHWH. Currently, everyone is doing their own thing, but he makes it clear that as of that point in time, there are certain prescribed rituals and ways of doing things when Israel worships God.

Proverbs 12:15 (HCSB) says:

A fool's way is right in his own eyes,
but whoever listens to counsel is wise.

Here, the Pavlovian response is justified. The meaning is clear that it is foolish to trust one's own understandings and wants when making choices.

This same warning is echoed in Proverbs 16:2 (HCSB), which says:

All a man's ways seem right in his own eyes,
but YHWH weighs the motives.

Although the warning is echoed here, there's also another message you can see if you read between the lines: People act according to their inner beliefs. In other words, "I wouldn't act this way if I didn't believe it's right for me to do so". (Granted, people often act in opposition to what they believe to be right, but at their very core, they believe what they're doing is "right for them".)

Perhaps the most recognized variant of this phrase comes from Judges 17:6 (ESV):

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

But this is also the passage that is probably most taken out of context.

This passage is not saying that the people then were living wild and having orgies and stealing from their neighbors and killing strangers for fun, and should not be so applied.

Instead, this passage is giving us the ideal form of human government: control of one's self according to a Godly mindset.

Now, I don't know that the people were fulfilling this ideal; I suspect, humans being the selfish creatures we are, that those people were not living according to a completely-given-over-to-God mindset. But that's the ideal.

Notice that the contrast in this passage is not between ungodly and Godly living: it's between a monarchical governmental system vs an individual-oriented system.

Imagine that in a perfect world everyone was Godly, and lived by the Golden Rule of treating others as you would want to be treated. In such a world, there would be no need for a sheriff, or a Congress, or a standing army, or a President, or a King, or any other of the trappings of "government". The ultimate, and only real, purpose of government is to make sure one person does not mistreat others. From the establishment of property boundaries, to the control of traffic lights, to the oversight of the radio spectrum, the proper role of government is simply to make sure that I don't fudge land from you by moving property markers, to make sure that I don't kill your family by running a red light, to make sure that I don't broadcast my radio station and silence yours with a jamming signal.

This sort of self-rule is easier in a smaller population, but if everyone were to adopt a God-mindset, it would work in any size population.

This is the ideal Kingdom of God. When all the citizens of the Kingdom fully submit to God, then we'll have no more need of man-made governments: we will need no king in Israel, for we will all do what is right in our own God-focused eyes.

Gravity: It Ain't What It Used to Be

Isaac Newton's theory of gravity, believed for centuries to be unassailable, has already had to undergo a couple of major modifications. Now, due to observations in the past decade, it looks like there's a paradigm shift taking place among cosmologists concerning gravity.

As the article at Crev.Info puts it in a quote from the primary source:

“Maybe Newton was indeed wrong”, declares Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University’s Argelander-Institut für Astronomie (AIfA). “Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity”....

and

Or one must assume that some basic fundamental principles of physics have hitherto been incorrectly understood. “The only solution would be to reject Newton’s classical theory of gravitation”, says Pavel Kroupa.

This would wreak havoc on current cosmological models and concepts such as dark matter, dark energy, and the Big Bang theory.

What's amazing is that the High Priests of Science have been telling us for years that they have all the answers, and that some "facts of science" are beyond question. Kind of puts a big question mark on other "scientific claims", such as the claim that “evolution is a fact, like gravity,” doesn't it?

Inherited Sin

On the Church_Of_Christ Yahoo!Group, George K. Howsepian wrote:

George: Was Adam born totally corrupt? Was Jesus?

It might be pointed out that Adam was not born. Nor was he created with corruption within him. That corruption, as I understand things, came as a result of his disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit.

Concerning Jesus, it's well to remember that he only inherited the human cell and his mother's half of his genetic material; the father's half (presumably) came directly from God.

My own personal thoughts is that the term "sin" is used in two ways in the Bible (but only directly "defined" in one of those ways, as "lawlessness - 1 John 3:4):

1) Breaking the law: an action or inaction causing guilt. This is the definition we've all grown up with. It's a "missing of the mark" in that we haven't met the specified requirements.

2) A flaw: an imperfection. We typically do not consider this as "sin", yet, it too is a "missing of the mark", a sub-par manifestation of the designed Ideal. Paul uses the term this way in Romans 7, when he talks about sin dwelling in him, in the very members of his body.

The first type of sin is not inheritable. Each person shall bear his own guilt, and shall not inherit the guilt of his ancestors.

The second type of sin is inheritable, and we've all inherited this sin from Adam. Thus, even babies who are innocent of the first type of sin, sometimes die, because they are subject to the second type of sin.

Jesus, however, did not inherit whatever part of the cellular machinery the rest of us humans inherit from our human fathers. My guess is that this has significance in relation to the inheritance of the second type of sin. My guess is that Jesus did not inherit the second type of sin, and I know he did not commit the first type of sin. Jesus was sinless.

The rest of us humans, however, are not sinless. We are sinless in the first sense at birth, but not in the second sense.

Thus, to claim that we are "totally depraved" is to go beyond the evidence, I believe. We are not totally depraved; yet we are flawed, and that flaw eventually leads to depravity for those of us who reach the "age of accountability".

I would hesitate even to define this second sense of sin as "sin", except that it seems to me to best fit the context of Romans 7 and Romans 3:23.

Skins for Adam and Eve

On the Church_Of_Christ Yahoo! Group, billysh226 wrote:

In the first place Adam wasn't born,he was created.Adam became corrupt when he died spiritually by his disobedience. That's why God made the first blood sacrafice and clothed them with animal skins{Gen.3:21} [errors in original].

Whereas I certainly do not dispute this claim that God killed [an] animal[s] and clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins, for that seems to me to make the best sense of the passage, it's good to realize that's not what the text says.

The text does not mention the killing of animals at all. Nor does it say that the skins came from animals.

If I had to offer any other hypothesis than the one billysh226 makes above, and which most of us have believed all our lives, I would suggest that perhaps before the Fall, Adam and Eve were dressed in light, much like Jesus and Elijah and Moses were dressed in light on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Being so clothed, they were not ashamed.

However, when they sinned, their light went out, and they were ashamed of what they had become. In this hypothesis, they were not ashamed because they now associated nudity with sin; they were ashamed because they no longer fully bore the image of God, Who is Light.

It would be kind of like you as a teenager being told by Mom and Dad to not get a tattoo, and then getting drunk one night and coming home covered in tattoos. You could not hide the evidence that you had broken your parents' trust. (Not a great analogy, I know, but it's the first thought that comes to mind.)

Adam and Eve could not hide the evidence that they had broken God's one rule, and now things had changed drastically, just as He had warned them they would. If it was merely a matter of becoming aware of their nudity, they might have tried to bluff their way through by pretending all was the same as before, which would have been possible if their external appearance had not changed.

But they couldn't bluff their way if their external appearance had changed. But perhaps they could cover themselves with leaves and such, and hide the fact that underneath the leaves their lights had dimmed.

God then prepared human skin to wrap around our bodies, to fulfill the job that the light formerly did.

There are flaws with this hypothesis, and so I really don't fully subscribe to it. But I do find the idea interesting. Perhaps the glow of an expectant mother is a very dim remnant of that original light. Perhaps the encouragement to be light-bearers, etc, are based on cultural reminders of once being dressed in light. Perhaps the angels of light are more reminiscent of what we looked like originally, and what we'll be like in the resurrection. Perhaps Moses' face glowed after meeting with God as a result of his cellular matrix being slightly recharged with the natural state of our bodies.

But regardless of whether this idea has merit, or some other idea might have merit, the main point I started off with, and with which I want to finish, is that the actual text says nothing about the death of an animal, or of the skins provided to Adam and Eve being from animals. That's a meaning that we've inserted into the text rather than taking out of the text.

Crashing Into God

I saw the movie "Crash" tonight. I have to say, I was more impressed than I expected. As I watched the film, two thoughts came to the forefront of my consciousness:

1) Love your neighbor. The movie dealt with relationships (and yet, it wasn't really a chic-flick; imagine that!), and whether taking a gun in hand to avenge a wrong, or reacting in anger at a scared, hurting person who rages at you unjustly, or simply being in your own little shell oblivious of real people around you, the answer to the sickness of these types of relationships was the foundational proclamation by Yahshua, who said that the two most important life-rules for living are to love YHWH with all your being, and to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself. If we all made this second rule of loving others (i.e. "the Golden Rule" - "Do unto others as you would have them do to you") the starting base of our lives, and constantly strove to live our lives by this rule, our lives and our world would be healthier than they are.

2) Do the right thing. The movie also had some subplots in which certain right/wrong decisions had to be made: "Do I frame the innocent guy to 'pay' for the guilt of my family member, or do I do the right thing?" The answer should always be, "Do the right thing, even if it costs you dearly."

A third thought came to mind later: You may not be who you think you are. In the movie, one person who was the bad guy turned out to be the good guy, and one who was the good guy turned out to be the bad guy. (Actually, this happened with several characters.) And the solution to this problem is to refer to Thought #2 above - "Do the right thing, even if it costs you dearly."

A friend pointed out a fourth thought, which I deem important: Don't judge people without knowing them. You've heard it since Grade School in the phrase, "Don't judge a book by its cover".

The evening was capped by a message from God as I did my nightly Bible reading. In Luke 12, Yahshua condemned hypocrisy. In the same breath he pointed out that, "[t]here is nothing covered that won't be uncovered, nothing hidden that won't be made known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in an ear in private rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops' (Luke 12:2-3). In other words, if you're sneaking around with your best friend's husband, or you're hiding your stash of porn mags, or you're secretly drinking or doing drugs, or you're slyly stealing from the cash register, you may think you're doing these things in the dark, but you're not. One day, in a grand courtroom, the bailiff will stand before all your friends and family and spouse and kids and enemies and announce to the world that you did X, Y, and Z in private. You may think you're hiding it, but you're not. I think it would be best if we learned to live our lives in such a way that we won't be ashamed of our private lives when we're in the Defendant's Seat. Don't be a hypocrite: be in private the person you pretend to be in public.

Luke 12 also has some other good nuggets:

* God knows every detail about you, even the number of hairs on your head. You may think He's not paying attention, that He's ignoring you (after all, He hasn't answered your prayer, has He?), but He's not. He knows everything about you (including those things you do in private, which are being recorded for announcing to the public later) (Luke 12:7).

* Store up treasure for God, not for yourself. Don't spend your resources on yourself. (Luke 12:16-21)

* Don't focus on supporting your lifestyle: instead, "Seek His Kingdom .... Sell your possessions and give to the poor" (Luke 12:31,33).

* The sinner who knows better will be punished more severely than the sinner who is merely ignorant (Luke 12:47-48).

This evening has been educational, and encourages me to take these lessons to heart.