Hey! Yeah, You, You One-Percenters!

1 Tim 6:17-19

1) Instructions specifically for those who have money. Don't trust money, but God:

Instruct those who are rich in the present age not to be arrogant or to set their hope on the uncertainty of wealth, but on God....

2) Surprise! God wants us to enjoy life:

[Focus on] God, who richly provides us with all things to enjoy.

3) Sharing your wealth is the way to an even richer, better life to come; make it part of your retirement plan:

Instruct them to do what is good, to be rich in good works, to be generous, willing to share, storing up for themselves a good reserve; for the age to come, so that they may take hold of life that is real.

Ooh, ooh, Look at me!

The 140Bible Project (https://twitter.com/140bible & http://facebook.com/140bible) has as its goal to tweet a chapter of the Bible per day for 1189 days. It's tough to squeeze the essence of a Bible chapter down into 140 characters, but I think we've done amazingly well over the past 2 and a half years.

Most recently we've gotten into 1 Corinthians, and I'm stunned by what I see in chapter four after tweeting the first three chapters. Here it is, for your examination:

1Co1-Paul, Sosthenes, to Corinth christians. Don't split; be one. Follow Jesus, not men. God chooses foolish, weak, to shame wise, strong.

1Co2-Paul's words weren't persuasive, but God confirmed them. Now God's Spirit reveals a Wisdom to the mature, who have the mind of Christ.

1Co3-Self-ID'ing w/ church leaders (mere servants, each doing their job, 1 in purpose, not function) rather than Christ is immature/worldly.

1Co4-Think of us leaders as just servants of Christ. So don't favor any human leaders. Except me; I have power they don't.

I've tweaked chapter four's tweet a bit to make it more palatable to the masses, to say:

1Co4-Think of us leaders as just servants of Christ. So don't favor any human leaders. Still, imitate me, not them; I have power they don't.

I don't really think that's what Paul intended to say, but it seems to be what he's saying.

What about you? If you were condensing these four chapters down into 140 characters (including the chapter reference), how would you phrase it?

[Originally posted at:  http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2013/03/ooh-ooh-look-at-me.html]

Requirements for Church Assemblies?

It is often taught that we have certain requirements to perform in our Christian assemblies. I recently responded to someone who suggested that among these requirements are these:

* Lord's Supper
* Pray
* Sing
* Study Bible
* Preaching
* Giving

He went on to say that "While an assembly might be for one purpose only we have certain responsibilities to perform at the 'first day of the week' assembly."

But I'm having trouble even finding a command to assemble on the first day of the week. I find the early disciples doing so in Acts 20 (but is it our Saturday night, the Jewish first day, or our Sunday, the Gentile first day?) I find a number of the core group of disciples doing so on Resurrection Sunday, and on the next Sunday, but it seems to be less a God-commanded assembly than a spontaneous assembly of commiserating losers the first time, and a convenient follow-up assembly the second. I see a reference in Revelation to "the Lord's Day". But I also see the early disciples meeting daily to break bread, not just on the first day (Acts 2:46).

Is the phrase "to break bread" in Acts 20 a reference to the Lord's Supper? To a going-away party for Paul (since "he was about to depart the next day")? To the second Passover, for those who missed the first (the timing is pretty close)? A normal regular meal assembly that perhaps they did every day, but with this day's break-bread-assembly deserving special mention because of the events surrounding it? Should we intend our break-bread-assembly to be on Saturday night, as seems apparent from the text if they were following Jewish time-keeping, or should we intend our break-bread-assembly to be on Sunday if they were following Gentile time-keeping, in which case we should not actually eat until after the second day of the week starts, after midnight, following Paul's example?

There are too many questions that are unanswered to dogmatically claim that this is a command/example for us to observe the Lord's Supper every first day of the week.

We find a weekly Sunday observance to be the habit in at least one early assembly when we look to the most ancient materials outside of the Bible (and more broadly the later in time we go), but since when do we take extra-Biblical sources as our guide in religious matters? If we do that, we're also going to have to honor the instructions in the Didache, which most likely dates from the end of the first century or early second, which means prescribed prayers for the Lord's Supper (among other issues, such as first confessing your transgressions prior to observing the Lord's Supper); are we really going to go that route?

Now don't get me wrong; I think that very early on, the disciples dropped their daily assemblies in favor of weekly first-day assemblies, in which the Lord's Supper was observed. I think we see hints of that in the New Testament. But I don't see a command from God to do this. Nor do I see an example that is indisputably binding.

I'm reminded of Jesus scolding the Pharisees (Matt 15:1ff) because they had used examples and human logic to find "binding" commands. He said that in so doing, they were "teaching as doctrines the commands of men" (v. 9). Jesus had no qualms with their traditions (Matt 23:2-3) (as long as they weren't used to set aside actual commands from God - 15:3); he had severe qualms with binding those traditions as commands, and teaching them as doctrines.

In following this example of Jesus, I'm on-guard against binding examples as commands, and then teaching them as doctrine. In light of this, let me say with emphasis: There is no command from God to observe the Lord's Supper every first day of the week. Hints? Clues? Possible, and even probable, examples? Yes, absolutely. But no command. Therefore I'm not going to make it a doctrine that it is a command, because then I would be teaching as doctrine a commandment of men.

The truth is that what is often put forward as "requirements" in our "required" assemblies, simply aren't. They are commands derived by human logic, applied to good, Biblical examples and inferences, backed up by extra-Biblical material. But such human-derived commands, taught as doctrine, are vain worship (Matt 15:9).

Originally posted at:

http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2013/02/requirements-for-church-assemblies.html

The Law of Sin and Death - Not a Moral Issue?

Many of us have been taught to think that Paul's phrase, "the law of sin and death", refers to spiritual separation from God as a result of an action or inaction on our part, in other words, that it's a moral issue.

(Right-click on this sentence to open the relevant passage in another tab/window so you can read the text for yourself.)

I would encourage you to rethink that. As I understand it, the term "law of sin and death" is not a "moral" law at all, but a physical law, like the law of gravity or the law of conservation of momentum. I base this on the context of the phrase as found in Romans 8:2.

In chapter seven of Romans, starting about verse 14,  Paul is speaking of his struggle to do right; although his desire is to do right, there's something in his physical body which overrides his desire, and causes him to do wrong (v. 15-19). He even goes so far as to say that it's not him that's doing the wrong, but the sin that dwells within him that causes him to do wrong (v. 20), and that he himself is powerless to do right (v. 18).

He discusses the "law of God" in his inner being (v. 22), in which he delights with the "law of his mind" (vv 22-23), and contrasts that with the "law of sin" which dwells in his members (v. 23). He says he's wretched because he's trapped in this "body of death" (v. 24), but he rejoices that God, through Jesus, allows him to serve God with the mind, even while his body obeys the "law of sin" (v 25).

Immediately after that usage of the phrase "law of sin" while referring to that something in his physical body which causes him to do what his moral mind chooses against, he uses the phrase "law of sin and death", saying that in Jesus Christ we are now free from that law (8:2).

A couple of chapters earlier, Paul distinguished between the guilt of sin, and the inheritance of sin.

Many of us have been well-trained to dispute the notion of inherited sin, but I believe that's a result of a misunderstanding of what sin is. We think that sin is only the transgression of law, and quote 1 John 3:4 as proof. Whereas that is true, that's not the only way the Bible refers to sin. As indicated above, sin is also something that physically dwells in our flesh.

Sin is both a moral action (as we've understood it), and a physical condition (which is inherent in our fallen bodies). As a moral action, sin is not inherited. As a physical condition, it is.

In Romans 5, Paul talks about how sin came into the world via Adam (v. 12). Adam's trespass was a choice to perform an action. He morally sinned. However, his action introduced into the world a physical curse. This curse included changes to the soil leading to much harder work for feeding one's self, the evolution of thorns & thistles, the devolution of the serpent, increased pain in childbirth, the loss of equality between the sexes, and eventual physical death. This curse spread to all humans (v. 12), because all sinned (v. 12).

Well, it's obvious that babies don't perform sinful actions, and yet they sometimes die. Why do they die? It's because they inherit the curse of death, which according to Paul spreads to all because all sin. Even if the person doesn't sin in the same manner as Adam (v. 14), if they don't choose to perform a sinful action like did Adam, although the guilt of sin is not imputed to them because no law has been broken (v. 13), nevertheless, they still die, because this curse reigns in our broken world, even before the arrival of Moses' law (v. 14).

So we have two definitions of sin here: 1) the condition of sin, which occurs regardless of law-breaking, and which results in death, and 2) the action of sin, which results in guilt.

The first type of sin is inherited; the second type of sin is not inherited. The first type of sin is what I believe Paul refers to when he uses the term "law of sin and death".

It is this first type of sin which Paul says is in his members, which causes him to perform the second type of sin, and which leads to death. He praises God through Jesus because he knows he will one day be set free from this law of sin and death, and not just us, in our physical bodies (8:23), but indeed, the entire cosmos (8:18-25). The cosmos was cursed when Adam sinned, but the second Adam has re-purchased the cosmos so that it may be set free from its bondage to corruption (8:21), and now we're just waiting on the delivery of the renewed creation. (Note, the creation was once "very good"; then it became cursed with death and disease and thorns and hard work and inequality; and some day it will again be restored to its original condition; this is a far cry from the evolutionary story that is often force-fitted into the Bible to accommodate modern "science".)

We're all under the "law of sin and death", not just those who are separated from God by sin. "Sin and death" is not a moral issue, but a physical issue. The "law of sin and death" does not refer to the principle that says, "If you sin, you die"; it refers to the principle of having a tangible condition within the corpuscles of our bodies which causes us to die.

At least, that's how I understand these relevant portions of Romans.

Originally posted at:
http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-law-of-sin-and-death-not-moral-issue.html

Divertismal

It was in the closing comments of the Aflred Hitchcock episode, "Vicious Circle" (Season 2, Episode 29 - you can watch it on Netflix, maybe YouTube). I believe the word he used was "divertismal". I can't find the word online, except on one site that uses it in a similar fashion. I take it to be roughly synonymous with "diversion".

Anyone can help me find the word?

Thanks!

Thoughts on The Parable of the Prodigal Son

• First, why do we call it the Parable of the Prodigal Son? The word "prodigal" is not found in the text itself (at least, not in the KJV, which is the version that would have set the usage in our culture). No one nowadays even knows what the word means ("wastefully extravagant"). If the average Joe knew what the word means, okay. But no one does. Maybe we should call it the Parable of the Wastefully Extravagant Son, or the Parable of the Squanderer.
• The church song, "God is Calling the Prodigal", implies that the word "prodigal" means something other than "wastefully extravagant"; it implies a meaning closer to "lost hungry runaway". In doing so, the song contributes to misunderstanding.
• Not only did the son waste the father's assets; he wasted the assets on prostitutes (Luke 15:30). I think this is indicative of both the disdain oriented toward prostitutes and their customers, and the acceptance of men visiting prostitutes if they have the money for it. I'm reminded of Judah in Genesis 38, who had no great problem with visiting a prostitute, although he wanted to keep it quiet, and then his judgmentalism (at first, until his own hypocrisy was pointed out to him) toward his daughter-in-law when he found out she had prostituted herself. I'm not entirely sure what my point is here, but I think it has something to do with humans being ... human.
• The party included music and dancing. I was raised in a church culture that said "dancing is sin". I'm pretty sure that attitude had its origins in protecting young hormone-adled teens from too much body-to-body stimulation, which is good, but it turned into a "No, you can't participate in the square-dance exercise in your elementary school music class" ruling. I think Jesus, in relating this part of the story with apparent approval, indicates that there's a middle ground on the issue of "dancing". I think he presents that view a lot in his teaching, counteracting our tendency to make hard-and-fast, black-and-white rules which often go to one extreme or the other.
• I've never quite understood the father's response to the older son. The younger son had indeed squandered the father's wealth, and yet, the father throws a party for him upon his return, and acts like he doesn't think a party needs to be thrown for the older son who has faithfully been a good son. But this time as I read it, something clicked a little for me. Pop is not saying that the younger son gets a start-over with a redistribution again of the wealth still left over; he's just saying, we're celebrating the younger son's renewal to life; the older son still has all the assets ("everything I have is yours"). The older son hasn't lost anything; he's not going to have to give up another half to the the younger son who has squandered all his wealth; it's just a celebration that the younger son is longer estranged from the family. In that light, the father's response makes more sense to me. The younger son still has to pay the price of losing his wealth, but he does now have a comfortable home, and is on good terms again with his dad (not because of what the younger son did - indeed, despite that - but because of the love the dad has for him).
• The faithful child is jealous that the unfaithful child got to do what he wanted and is yet still accepted. I can't help but think of Paul's discussion in Romans 10:19 and c. Romans 11:11, wherein he talks about Israel, the "son who stayed home", being made jealous that the non-Israelites get to be saved too.
• The younger son, after squandering his money, had to associate with pigs. For a Jew, that was a big no-no. This son was in the bottom rung of society at this point.
• This story reminds me of the Benny Hester song,When God Ran.

Will Jesus Ever Set Foot on this Earth Again?

Will Jesus Ever Set Foot on this Earth Again?

As near as I can tell from the Scriptures, we're not told that he won't, and we're not told that he will.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 gives us some hints:

16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the archangel’s voice, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are still alive will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we will always be with the Lord.

We know from this that he comes into the atmospheric region of the Earth, but we're not told that he will actually step on the surface again. We know we'll join with him in the air, and so be with him forever, but does that mean we'll be with him forever in the earth's atmosphere (unlikely, since the atmosphere is destined for fire), or does it simply mean we'll be with him forever, wherever he goes?

I have no problem saying we have no solid evidence that he will step onto the earth's surface again; I do have a problem saying that we know he won't.

As I understand it, the cosmos, along with Adam and Eve, were designed to be eternal. God walked on the Earth at that time (Gen 3:8). Then Adam sinned, and both he and the creation itself were subjected to corruption. Now, the creation itself is eagerly waiting to be set free from that corruption, just as we await the same redemption of our physical bodies. Here's the relevant text for this, from Romans 8:

19 For the creation eagerly waits with anticipation for God’s sons to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility—not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it—in the hope 21 that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious freedom of God’s children. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together with labor pains until now. 23 And not only that, but we ourselves who have the Spirit as the firstfruits—we also groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

Adam had an eternal physical body, but it was not subject to corruption.

Jesus' physical body was raised, and is now not subject to corruption (Acts 13:34), and he took it into heaven (Acts 1:9). He will return to Earth in a similar manner to that in which he left (Acts 1:11).

Our physical bodies, like the first-fruits body of Jesus, will be raised, and changed to be incorruptible (not replaced - changed). We will be like him.

Somehow or 'nuther in that, the current heavens and earth will be melted with fire (2 Peter 3:5-7, 10 12), in a similar manner to the destruction of the earth in the Flood (a destruction, but not an annihilation). Does this burning describe a consumption to nothing, or does it describe a metamorphosis, like a caterpillar melting into a jelly on its way to a butterfly?

As I understand it, the pre-Fall world, and the post-Return world, were, and will be, a "physi-spiritual" world, more physical than we tend to imagine, but without the corruption-capability we associate with the word "physical". It will be like the body of Jesus; his body was composed of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), was able to eat (Luke 24:43), to be hugged (John 20:17; Matt 28:9), to walk (Luke 24:15), to cook (John 21:9), to holler (John 21:5, 8), to bear scars (John 20:24-27), but it was also able to pass through solid walls/doors (20:19, 26), change appearance (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:13ff) , teleport from one place to another (Luke 24:31), and float into the sky and into heaven with neither wings nor spacesuit (Acts 1:.9-10).

Will Jesus stand on a this earth again, after it's burned up and renewed, like he once walked in the garden? I don't know; the text only gives hints, without clarity. But I'm hesitant to claim I have the answer one way or the other.

Hypocritic

I think I just penned a word: hypocritic

It describes those controlling people who are never happy with what you do, like the people in Luke 7 who criticize if you do or if you don't, if you dance or if you don't dance, if you eat or if you don't eat, because you're not meeting their own personal expectations.

^{HCSB Luke 7:31} “To what then should I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like? ³² They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to each other:

We played the flute for you,
but you didn’t dance;
we sang a lament,
but you didn’t weep!

³³ For John the Baptist did not come eating bread or drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ ³⁴ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ ³⁵ Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children.”

Biblical Contradictions

I've talked about Biblical contradictions before, in writing about how context matters.

You're probably familiar with the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each blind man touches an elephant on a different part of its body (one touching a leg, another a tusk, another an ear, etc), and then describe what they felt, only to discover they were in complete disagreement about an elephant's description.

It's not the elephant that is at fault, but rather the reports given about the elephant.

I believe this applies to the Bible. The Bible often "contradicts" itself, but the fault is not in the book itself, but rather in our limited ability to perceive it.

For example, the Bible clearly states that a person will pay for his own sins, not that of his parents (Ezek 18:20), and yet, it also says that we bear the burden of our parents' sins (Jer 32:18; Lam 5:7).

It also implies that children are innocent of sin (Matt 18:3; 19:4), and yet also implies that we are born with sin (Gen 6:5; Ps 53:2-3; Rom 5:12ff).

It indicates that sin is something we do (1 John 3:4), and yet it indicates that sin is something that we have (Rom 7:17).

We humans don't like our holy books to have contradictions, so we expend lots of effort to explain away the contradictions. We usually do so by attacking the viewpoints opposing our own, finding an alternative explanation for that viewpoint.

There's nothing wrong with that; a certain amount of it is healthy, because Truth is worth searching for.

The problem is when we conclude that we have the Truth, and our opponents do not, because they don't have the same love for the truth that we ourselves have. What's worse, is when that attitude causes us to twist the scriptures to support our viewpoint. Worse even still, is when, after we've twisted the scriptures ourselves, we then accuse our opponents of twisting the scripture.

It might just be that our view of the elephant is limited by our blindness.

So what's my point?

My point is that maybe we don't have such a perfect understanding as we think we have. If the text has been argued about for centuries, by minds greater than our own, maybe we should be a little more humble in declaring we have the answer and they don't.

We often insist on unity in "the essentials". Maybe we should instead insist on unity in things that are clear. (And even then, is it really clear?) And on other things, don't judge, but let each servant stand before God on his own, for the Lord will make him stand (Rom 14:1-4).

Refusing the Obvious

My friend, Robert Blasingame, posts at his blog an interesting observation:

The chief priests, etc, who had Jesus arrested, tried, and executed, knew he had claimed that he would rise again, so much so that they posted guards at his tomb to prevent anyone from stealing the body so that they could claim he had arisen.

But then, when it actually happened, they had a first-hand account from those guards that angels, not humans, had opened the tomb, leading to the disappearance of Jesus' body. And still, despite the impeccable testimony, the chief priests refused to accept the obvious.

Talk about willful blindness.

Meeting Cassie

In the beginning we were just friends.

The main door to the hospital is a large revolving door. She was already inside the door, and the entrance gap was just about to close as I approached. I increased my pace to barely slip through the closing gap, and the door's sensor must've thought I was going to be hit, and the door suddenly stopped. The girl didn't, and she ran into the door on the opposite side which otherwise would have been out of her way by then. I apologized to her, and that was our first contact. I thought about her the rest of the evening, and until the morning. That was day one.

Back at the hospital, I saw her fighting with the vending machine. I asked her how her nose was, and made other small talk. I eventually wound up buying her a Sprite from the other, non-money-stealing vending machine. That led to an exchange of names; her name is Cassie. I definitely thought of her the rest of the evening, well into the morning. That was day two.

She gave me no indication of being interested in me, so I tried to curb my own interest in her. But when I saw her sitting in a Family Room, my heart expanded out to her. I wondered why she was in a Family Room instead of her mom's hospital room. Had something gone bad? I went in and sat with her. Turns out she was just using the room as a waiting room while her mom had relatively minor surgery. I sat with her for hours. We played Nickel Train with the room's domino set. I enjoyed her company, and I think she enjoyed mine. We played late, past evening, into the morning. That was day three.

Now, my question for you, Dear Reader: Do you get the sense, at all, that the days above are anything but 24-hour days?

No?

Then why do you try to force the days of Genesis 1, structured very similarly to the days in my fictional story above, into being something other than 24-hour days? I think it's because you're trying to force the text to fit your notions of what it should be, rather than letting it be what it is.

Languages of Love

According to Chapman and Campbell, there are five basic "languages" of love: physical touch, quality time, gifts, acts of service, and words of affirmation.

Different people "speak" different languages, and different people "hear" different languages.

One person may natively speak acts of service, and hear physical touch, while another speaks and hears quality time.

If you don't speak the language of love which is heard by the one you love, it is your responsibility to learn how to speak that language. It is a cop-out to say, "Well I'm just not good at touching people, but I really do love you. Can't you see that by the gifts I bring you?"

Amos 4 in 35 Seconds

YHWH speaks to Israel: "You cows of Bashan! You women who oppress the poor and crush the needy, who nag your husbands, 'Bring me a drink!'

"Disaster is coming."

Verse 6 - "I sent famine. And you got hungry. But you didn't get hungry for me. You ignored me."

Verse 7 - "I sent drought. And you got thirsty. But you didn't get thirsty for me. You ignored me."

Next few verses - "I ruined your crops. I sent you plagues. I brought war to your doorstep. I overthrew some of your towns. And you ignored, ignored, ignored, ignored me."

Verse 12 - "So, prepare to meet your God!"

Feeding the Puppies

Sad, that we get the wrong concept so often from badly translated passages in our mainstream Bible versions. For example, here's Mark 7:27 from a few different mainstream versions:

KJV - But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

HCSV - He said to her, “Allow the children to be satisfied first, because it isn’t right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

NIV (1984) - “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”

ESV - And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.”

and so on....

Of these versions, the NIV comes closest to the meaning. But these next three do the best job:

YLT - And Jesus said to her, `Suffer first the children to be filled, for it is not good to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] to the little dogs.'

Amp - And He said to her, First let the children be fed, for it is not becoming or proper or right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the [little house] dogs.

ISV - But he kept telling her, "First let the children be filled. It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the puppies."

When we read the first versions, we get in our mind an insult, that Jesus is referring to this woman's ethnic group as dogs. The mental image that arises is Jesus turning his back on her in a huff, throwing his nose up into the air, and saying, "Begone, Dog!"

But that's not what's going on. He's drawing a picture of a harried mom trying to get things done while the kids are at the breakfast table and she's focused on the wrong thing by feeding the household puppy dogs instead of feeding the kids.

And the woman to whom Jesus speaks replies, "Yes, but even when a good mom pays attention to her kids, where it's supposed to be, instead of to the puppies, the puppies still benefit from the spilled crumbs -- they don't go hungry. The mom does not actively prevent the pups from benefiting from what the kids drop."

That word "little" (such as seen in Young's Literal Translation) makes a substantial difference in how our brains draw up the picture, doesn't it?

For those who are curious, the Greek word is word #2951 in Strong's Concordance (http://concordances.org/greek/2952.htm):

kunarion: a little dog

Original Word: κυνάριον, ου, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: kunarion
Phonetic Spelling: (koo-nar'-ee-on)
Short Definition: a little dog
Definition: a little dog, a house dog.

Cognate: 2952 kynárion – properly, puppy, a diminutive of 2965 /kýōn ("dog").

We would do well to be teaching Biblical Greek and Hebrew in our Sunday school classes, to our little ones who have the absorption capabilities to learn new languages. Within a generation, we'd have a church membership which is much more Biblically literate than our current crop of Christians.

Unalienable Rights

According to the Founders of our great and united States of America, our rights come from our Creator, not from Government, and they are unalienable ("not to be separated, given away, or taken away"). Further, our unalienable rights are not limited to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, but rather these are just three examples amongst them.

When I was a kid, one of us might ask if we could do such-and-so, and another would answer, "It's a free country; do what you want." Nowadays, the answer is more likely to be, "You'll have to ask permission at the permit office. And pay a fee."

I don't own my land; if I did, I wouldn't have to ask the government permission to cut down a tree or put up a fence or build a house or risk losing the land if I don't pay the "protection money", er, I mean,  property tax.

I'm not arguing against all restrictions; some are necessary to avoid tromping on the rights of my neighbors; I'm just pointing out the change in mentality that has occurred in the past half-century which has ceded our freedoms to the "authorities" who are now responsible, no longer for guaranteeing those freedoms, but for dispensing them.

Many of our leaders (as well as many of the American sheeple) seem to be of the mentality that our certain unalienable rights are endowed to us by government. That conflicts with the Founders' viewpoint. It's an unAmerican position.

If you've never read the Declaration of Independence, give it a read, or at a bare minimum, the first two paragraphs; it's a short document:

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Elders, Pastors, Bishops, Shepherds, Part 2

In my previous post, I answered two questions asked on an email list (Church_of_Christ on Yahoo!Groups) from the questioner abotsipatrick. In this post, another email list member responds to the same questions.

---

"abotsipatrick" asks:

"Do the terms pastor, elder, bishop and overseer refer to the same office or different offices?"

Bishop and overseer both translate the exact same word from the Greek NT--"episkopos."  You'll find "bishop" used by English translations from more of the "high church" tradition in Php. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-2; Ti. 1:7 (cf. KJV, ASV, RSV, NKJV, NRSV).  In those very same passages, other English versions (particularly those prepared by a predominantly Evangelical committee), you'll find the term "overseer" in place of bishop (cf. ESV, NASB, NCV, NIV, NET).

Do we find in the NT the three terms ["pastor/shepherd" from poimaino, "elder/older" from presbuteros, "overseer" from episkopos] being used interchangeably for the same role in the NT church or for three separate roles?  Acts 20:17-28 has Paul sending for the "elders" of the church in Ephesus and telling those elders that the Holy Spirit has made them "overseers" in order to "pastor" (shepherd, care for) the church of God.  In 1 Pet. 5:1-2, Peter exhorts his fellow "elders" to "pastor" the flock of God, exercising "oversight" (verb form of episkopos).  Titus 1 uses overseer and elder for the same role Paul is describing, a role he uses overseer for in 1 Tim. 3.

An "elder" is who this person is--an older as opposed to younger individual, someone who has gained some practical wisdom through life experience over time.

"Overseer" is what this person is, what it is they do--care for the church, providing guidance, direction, protection.

"Shepherd" is how the this older person is to exercise oversight--like a shepherd with his sheep (see Ezek. 34 and Ps. 23).  They are to nurture, nourish, and protect the members of God's flock.

Side bar:  notice I have refrained from using the term "office," which is foreign to the text.  If we're going to import terminology into the text, I think "function" is superior to "office".  Elder/overseer/shepherd is not a string of titles but descriptions for a function within Christ's body the Church.  If one is not functioning as an overseer/shepherd, providing that nurturing, nourishment, and protection, then they aren't shepherds.  One can have a title and hold an office yet have no function.  Not so with elder/overseer/shepherd.

Abotsipatrick asks a second question:

"Does Eph. 4:11...teach that being a pastor is a gift from God that does not require the appointment or ordination of humans?"

No.  Yes, it teaches that the roles or functions of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher are gifts from God, just like service, generosity, exhortation, leadership, being merciful are gifts from God (Rom. 12:6-8).  It does not necessarily follow, however, that stepping in to the role of an apostle or evangelist or pastor does not require some form or recognition and affirmation of that gift by the Body of Christ through some appointment or ordination by humans.

Did not Paul and Barnabas (two humans) go through the congregations they had planted and appoint elders in each congregation (Ac. 14:23)?  Did not Paul, a human, leave Titus, another human, on the isle of Crete to appoint elders in every town as Paul directed him to do (Ti. 1:5)?  How was it Timothy became an evangelist?  Was it not through Paul's deliberate selection based in part upon the recommendation of the believers from Timothy's home congregation (Ac. 16:1-4), and did it not include the laying on of hands of an eldership (1 Tim. 4:14).  Was not Timothy himself, in being given instructions about what to look for in a prospective overseer or deacon (1 Tim. 3) cautioned not to "lay hands" (i.e. commission or ordain) on anyone too hastily (1 Tim. 5:22)?  Was not there direct human involvement in the selection of Judas' replacement to the role of apostle?  For it began with Peter addressing the need and setting out the parameters for the kind of person they were looking for.  The congregation narrowed the field down to two individuals.  After that, they asked God to make his choice of the two known through prayer and casting lots (Ac. 1:15-26)?  Human involvement working with Divine guidance.

The Lord save the church from self-appointed apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.

Final observation:  Somehow, somewhere, we've picked up the notion that having a gift means permission to use that gift in any manner the gifted one seems fit.  But a gift is not a license to do as one pleases.  Bezalel and Oholiab were divinely gifted by God and filled with God's Spirit "with ability, intelligence, knowledge and craftmanship to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, bronze," etc. in order to construct the tabernacle (Ex. 31; 35:30-36:5).  Yet those gifts were only to be used within the boundaries established by God.  When God said to use almond blossoms for the menorah, for example, they did not have the artistic license to add or substitute cherry blossoms in the design.  Gifted artisans though they were, they were not at liberty to use those God-given gifts to construct an idol, or pornographic sculptures, etc.

Reception of a gift is not permission to then use it in any manner or fashion we please.  We must exercise our gifts within the parameters God has established.

Respectfully,
Stephen Lord

Elders, Pastors, Bishops, Shepherds

On an email list of which I'm a member, abotsipatrick asked the following:

Do the terms pastor, elder, bishop and overseer refer to the same office or different offices?

and

Secondly, does Ephesians 4:11 ("and some pastors and teachers") teach that being a pastor is a gift from God that does not require the appointment or ordination of humans?

In this post, I give my response. In my next post, I will give the response of another list member.

----

Let me encourage you to think in terms of "roles", or "services", first, and then apply that to the concept of "office".

pastor - I encourage you to mentally translate this word as "shepherd". The role of a shepherd is to care for a flock of dumb sheep, making sure they get fed, watered, and are safe, occasionally helping in the process of birthing or other medical service, etc. The shepherd is not a rule-maker, or a tyrant, or a business person, except only insofar as taking care of the business of flock-care requires.

elder - I encourage you to mentally translate this word as "older person". The older people in a group tend to be those who have been wizened by life-experience, and who thus have influence on the direction the group goes. They would tend to make or at least influence the making of whatever rules are needed for the flock's personal safety.

bishop, overseer - these two words are from same word, but represent different eras of the English language. I encourage you to mentally translate this word as "overseer", or "supervisor". This is a person who directs, takes charge, assigns tasks, makes sure things work according to the mission statement. They would tend to make whatever rules are needed for the flock's communal safety.

An ideal, mature leader will have all of these characteristics, such that the roles overlap in one individual. I believe that in the New Testament, the ideal was that the local church leader[s] would fill all of these roles. However, when a leader recognizes that he's not suited to a particular task, he might delegate that task to another, such as how the leaders in the early church (Acts 6) delegated the shepherding role of physically feeding the community to specially-designated servants, while they focused on the shepherding role of spiritually feeding the community.

Likewise, a local community of believers might have a leadership body containing one person who is very good at the business aspects of running the group - this person would most likely fill the role of bishop/overseer. Another person in the leadership might excel at dispensing wisdom, and might serve as the counselor who is sought out for his answers to life. A third person in the leadership might be an awesome teacher, filling the minds and spirits of the membership with God's food. Or perhaps each of the leaders excels in all three areas, or a mixture.

So to answer your question, yes, the terms all do refer to the same "office" - that of leadership, but they do not necessarily all refer to the same officeholder, the same leader. As Romans 12:4 says:

^KJV For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

let us focus on using whatever gift God has given each of us, and let those with the gifts of shepherding and of wisdom-dispensing and of supervisory capabilities use their gifts to care for, lead, and take care of the community. And let us recognize that it will be rare to find one person with all these characteristics, which is part of the reason a leadership body might be better composed of multiple leaders with differing strengths rather than trying to force-fit a single leader into filling all the roles.


abotsipatrick's second question:

Secondly, does Ephesians 4:11 ("and some pastors and teachers") teach that being a pastor is a gift from God that does not require the appointment or ordination of humans?

Paul writes in Galatians 1:1 that he is "an apostle—not from men or by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father". The full text of the verse you reference is:

^{HCSB Eph 4:11} And He personally gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,

Yes, being a pastor is a gift from God that does not require the appointment or ordination of humans. Compare Romans 12:

⁶ According to the grace given to us, we have different gifts: If prophecy,
use it according to the standard of one’s faith;
⁷ if service, in service;
if teaching, in teaching;
⁸ if exhorting, in exhortation;
giving, with generosity;
leading, with diligence;
showing mercy, with cheerfulness.

and 1 Corinthians 12:

⁴ Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit. ⁵ There are different ministries, but the same Lord. ⁶ And there are different activities, but the same God activates each gift in each person. ⁷ A demonstration of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial:

⁸ to one is given a message of wisdom
through the Spirit,
to another, a message of knowledge
by the same Spirit,
⁹ to another, faith by the same Spirit,
to another, gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
¹⁰ to another, the performing of miracles,
to another, prophecy,
to another, distinguishing between spirits,
to another, different kinds of languages,
to another, interpretation of languages.

¹¹ But one and the same Spirit is active in all these, distributing to each person as He wills.

and

²⁷ Now you are the body of Christ, and individual members of it. ²⁸ And God has placed these in the church:

first apostles, second prophets,
third teachers, next miracles,
then gifts of healing, helping,
managing, various kinds of languages.
²⁹ Are all apostles? Are all prophets?
Are all teachers? Do all do miracles?
³⁰ Do all have gifts of healing?
Do all speak in other languages?
Do all interpret?

³¹ But desire the greater gifts.

God gives each of us one or more gifts, to be used in building up the body. Some of them are miraculous; some are not. Some are given according to what God deems best; some are given according to what we desire (v 31 above) and pursue (1 Cor 14:1) and ask for (1 Cor 14:13).

However, just because a person has a gift, that does not necessarily mean he will be appointed within a particular community to exercise that gift. Paul instructed Titus to appoint people to serve as elders in each town; but he restricted those appointments to people who were suitable for the task. God gives the gift and the overall appointment; Man gives the local appointment.

What He Did

Lost in my mind, dark and unknown, i don't know what to do, i'm just so alone. I want to be let out and set free, But I don't know who I am or where I should be. I feel empty and hollow, I feel nothing but pain and sorrow. My world is spinning and i'm on the ground, Everyone is gone and I don't hear a sound. This monster inside my soul, It's taken over and left me in an empty hole. I want out, want to see the light, But something is there, blocking my sight. I scream for help and release, In my heart all i want is peace. I feel the blood run down my throat hot and thick, I know now the clock of life would no longer tick. My life was over and i was dead, Now only darkness filled my head. He killed me and took my life, I was gone, his love, his sacrifice. The monster silenced me with all his might, No longer would I live or see the beauty of the light.

-- anonymous

Held Captive

I lay still in my bed, hearing his footsteps:
terrified creaking down teh stairs I hear, seconds later the moment I
dread. I pretend to be sleeping with my eyes closed tight, my nightmare
has come all over again.
I hear you stop at the foot of my bed -- right about now I am wishing I
was dead! You move your hands over me as I drift to a place that does
not exist, a place where I am just a child, a place with no fear, a
place with no pain.
I feel your body as it presses into mine.
My breath is taken from my chest.
I am well aware this won't be the last.
You achieve your goals, then leave.
What have I done, I'm left all alone.
The tears roll down my face.
Please, please just get me outta this place.
The years have gone by and I wanna believe the monsters will never
hurt me again, I pray, and pray, never again, yet in one moment my guard
I let down once again. This familiar stranger, I let in, with my eyes
closed my nightmare begins. I know in my heart it's not gonna end.. His
hands are on me, my clothes on the floor. I cry and cry but I'm a scared
little coward who deserves much more. I've become his whore as his body
becomes one with mine. Something in me dies, this little girl will be
the same no more.
My mind holds a pile of memories that I wish I could burn. That will not
happen; it haunts me at night. Once my eyes close my nightmares begin.
My reality becomes misery, but I give it my all. I've been imprisoned,
the voices around me preach on and on "It's over, now time to move on",
trying to convince me there is no shame. I try to forget yet once again
the nightmares begin. It'll never be over; it'll simply start over again. 

-- anonymous

Spock Talks Evolution

I watched the original series Star Trek episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" tonight.

In this episode, Spock said, "The actual theory is that all life-forms evolved from the lower levels to the more advanced stages."

This highlights my scientific objection to Evolution; I see lots of "change" in life forms, in the fossil record, in everyday experience, in the lab, in historical records, but that change is overwhelmingly downward, somewhat lateral, and never unambiguously upward. Cave fish lose their eyes, serpents lose their legs, bacteria lose the ability to process a chemical which makes them less fit overall but allows them to survive in a weakened state in a small niche environment of antibiotic chemicals; finch beaks lengthen one year and shrink the next, only to lengthen again the next year, as weather/environmental conditions change from year to year; robust mutt dogs "evolve" into weaker but more specialized breeds, gaining perhaps a longer body suitable for digging mice out of mice-holes, but at the cost of weaker spines and shorter lives. When it can be demonstrated that some natural process (random genetic mutations, or hereditary passing of acquired characteristics, or whatever) can generate new, never-before-seen functions and organs and capabilities, not just on a "here's a possible candidate" rare exception basis, but on a "this is the rule rather than the exception" basis, then I'll be able to consider Evolution as a more viable concept.

Simply put, the evidence is lacking.

And the inability to distinguish between upward evolution and downward or lateral evolution, using the same term to describe all three phenomena, is what makes most people believe Evolution is true. The evolutionary proponents take advantage of this inability, "moving the goalposts" so to speak, by claiming in their books, documentaries, museum displays, etc, that "Evolution" (in the sense of upward progress) is a fact supported by a wealth of evidence, and then they trot at as evidence examples of lateral and/or downward "evolution".