MOPS and Its Move Away from Biblical Christianity

September 6, 2016, 12:00 pm

≫ Next: Amos, the Earthquake of 760 B.C., and Jesus Christ

≪ Previous: Francis Scott Key and America's National Anthem

$

0

0

Emmanuel Enid MOPS Group, September 1, 2016

I (Wade Burleson) have been writing articles for Istoria for nearly fifteen years. During that time, only a handful of posts have attracted as many views in such a short period of time as last month's Open Letter of Concern Over MOPS International. Obviously, a number of people have an interest in the ministry of MOPS, and not a few are concerned about the direction of MOPS. Sarah Wilkins, whose testimony of coming to faith in Christ is extremely moving, works as our MOPS Outreach Director. Sarah has been the person responsible for our emphasis on outreach through our MOPS ministry over the last several years.

Since the publication of Sarah's Open Letter of Concern regarding MOPS, she has been flooded with phone calls, emails, and requests for materials that she has put together in place of the MOPS International material for this fall. Using the same theme, Sarah has put together material that is more Christ-centered. She will send her  materials to anyone who asks, free of charge. It's not in Sarah's personality to be a critic of MOPS. She is not a "fundamentalist" in the way that the word is usually cast. In fact, because of our grace perspective at Emmanuel, we are often called "liberal," and Sarah majors on grace. We love people, accept people where they are, and we focus on outreach. However, we also treasure Jesus Christ, and we believe that God's grace through the Person and work of Jesus Christ is the only hope for sinners in need of transformation. Grace transforms; and grace is never understood apart from clarity on the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

We have a very specific reason for following up on Sarah's initial Open Letter of Concern regarding the direction of MOPS International. Since the August 12, 2016 publication of the Open Letter of Concern, some employees of MOPS have sent electronic communication, accusing Sarah of "factual misrepresentation" and suggesting that Sarah's Open Letter of Concern is "based on assumptions, and is no way an accurate assessment of MOPS materials." Further, an official with MOPS has written, "It is disturbing to us the body of Christ is choosing to gossip, slander, and...wound its fellow believers." 

In light of MOPS International's denial that anything is wrong with the direction of this fall's MOPS materials (EDIT: see MOPS International board of directors official response to Sarah at the end of this article), I have decided to publish Sarah's follow-up. I trust that if you are a pastor or leader in your church, you will not take Sarah's word (or mine), but you will do your own research. In our opinion, what is at stake is not one's perception of a book, a ministry, or even a blog, but the Gospel itself.

_____________________________________________________________________________

A Follow-Up Blog to the Response We Received from MOPS International to Our Open Letter

This is a follow up blog to the Open Letter of Concern we initially published on August 12, 2016. 

Our MOPS group had our first meeting on September 1^st.  It was a joy.  76 women filled the chairs, and we know of at least 5 more who told us they could not attend the first meeting, but will be at the next meeting.  25 of the women raised their hands to indicate it was their first MOPS meeting to attend. 19 of them listed no church on their registration forms. It’s a brave thing to walk into a church building where you’ve never been, and to join a group of women whom you’ve never met. God is at work in the hearts of His people.

The MOPS International Board of Directors contend that the 2016 MOPS material was written for the purpose of outreach in order to spark discussions among moms who don't know Christ and have no church experience (see their official response to me at the bottom of this page). 

Emmanuel’s first MOPS meeting this fall is proof that one does not have to downgrade the theological content of the MOPS material to reach more people.  Quoting and emphasizing other belief systems will not make your church's MOPS group open to women who have no church background.   Being intentional in getting to know and issuing invitations to all kinds of women in your community to attend MOPS will create an atmosphere where women with no church background are accepted.

After thinking deeply about what was written in Starry Eyed, the companion book and online resources from MOPS, and after watching and reading the sources that heavily influence the book Starry Eyed, I realized my core issue with the MOPS curriculum this fall is how sin, truth and Biblical sufficiency are addressed in the materials.  I also have realized that MOPS International seems to have become a major player in a loose trend within traditional Christian churches, a trend in which Truth is represented as something that changes and can't be known. It is a trend where sin is not addressed because personal salvation is deeply rooted in self transcendence. It is a trend in where anyone who takes the Bible as sufficient for one's faith and life is scoffed at as a closed minded and archaic person.

This years’ Starry Eyed theme seems designed to help moms navigate through life's dark challenges, as well as to encourage moms to find hope. Much of the material seems based on the core views of people like John Philip Newell and Rob Bell. The teaching of these two men are linked below for your viewing. 

When I spoke to Mandy via phone, I directly asked her about her view on sin. She was nice to me over the phone, and even offered to fly me to Denver to speak on Emmanuel's outreach successes through MOPS, as well as our outreach strategies. But Mandy didn't answer my question on her view of sin.  She did talk to me about next years theme, but my heart grew even more troubled by what I heard. There seemed to be deep theological differences between her theology and my understanding of biblical Christianity. Those differences may even be irreconcilable. because it seems to me through hearing Mandy's own words, her views are entrenched. After listening to Mandy's review regarding next year's MOPS theme, I felt compelled to ask her again about her view of sin.  Mandy would not speak to me about sin, and it seemed to me that because I pressed for an answer, I was the problem. Our church has partnered with MOPS for over 20 years in ministering to women, and to ask the President of MOPS her view on sin seems like a question that MOPS partners should be able to ask. 

Mandy did tell me about how important mystics are to her.  On page 93 in Starry Eyed Mandy writes:

"One of my favorite books is The Rebirthing of God: Christianity’s Struggle for New Beginnings by Celtic mystic John Philip Newell.

It is only this chapter in Mandy's book, but it seems that a large chunk of Starry Eyed is devoted to the thoughts of John Philip Newell. This man does not believe in sin.  This man writes and speaks that at birth “We forget our deepest truth.” Newell believes Jesus came to help us remember, and that our goal on earth is to become one with each other, with created things, and with nature itself. Newell teaches in opposition to original sin and the sufficiency of Scripture. This YouTube video of his teaching from February 7, 2016 at a Price Lecture series is a succinct delivery of his non-biblical beliefs, many of which are incorporated into this years MOPS book.  At the end of the 45 minutes presentation, John Philip Newell and the participants all chant verses from the Koran, Hebrew texts and the sayings of Jesus, as if they are all on equal footing. I suggest those in doubt to read the book and watch the videos.

You might be wondering why I’m concerned over Newell and his teachings.  Mandy Arioto has been traveling the country speaking. Recently in Arizona, Mandy focused heavily in her speech on mysticism where she referenced John Philip Newell. A mentor mom from Arizona emailed me this information. She had gone to hear Arioto speak, and she told me she was sickened by the content of the speech and the absoluteness in which it was delivered. This mentor mom had gone to Mandy's speech having never seen our original Open Letter of Concern. I found MOPS whole strategy this year to sound strikingly similar to the description of Newell’s The Rebirthing of God. Did you know that Newell teaches at the ILLIFF School of Theology in Denver? Did you know that MOPS is paying for employees to go to seminary? I’m left wondering if it’s the one where Newell teaches.

I can prove that this years’ MOPS’ material, based on Newell's ideology, is outside of MOPS International's Statement of Faith. How?  Newell speaks openly and often about how his ideas come from Pelagius whom he devoutly follows as an admired mystic.  Church history records Pelagius as a heretic from A.D. 420.  He was accused by Augustine of Hippo of heresy and tossed out by the Council of Carthage. Seminaries to this day have students write essays about this Pelagius' heretical belief system. Newell (and Pelagius) are not the kind of men I want influencing my moms who are without the Holy Spirit.  St. Augustine of Hippo wanted to protect his flock from Pelagius. He and I have something in common to chat about in eternity. It’s worth noting that Newell's and Rob Bell’s belief systems are strikingly similar. Rob Bell even writes a glowing review printed inside Newell’s book.

Though I appreciate that the MOPS Board of Directors have said they will be reviewing the MOPS content more closely to make sure it is not as controversial as this year's material,  I think one of their main jobs is to set and maintain MOPS Internationals Statement of Faith. After all, the MOPS Statement of Faith is supposed to be the basis of our partnership contracts.  MOPS partnership churches from all over the United States have come to their own conclusions on the materials and have been emailing me to get replacement materials and board contacts to write the board of directors. I don’t believe healthy discussion is Mandy Arioto’s goal.  I think Mandy thinks we have it all theologically wrong.   I think she thinks we all need to be exposed to Newell’s, Bells’ and mysticism's higher ways of thinking.

MOPS and the board knew this controversy would happen in May when they released the Starry Eyed theme to our MOPS coaches. Many coaches quit.  Seven coaches in Illinois quit after their concerns were ignored.  Many of these coaches wrote letters to the board and received no response.  Instead of keeping the well-being of all MOPS groups in mind and focusing on how MOPS groups can join together for a common cause, MOPS seems to have decided moms really needed to hear this year's message. 

There are other controversial thinkers and teachers of beliefs contrary to MOPS Internationals statement of faith in the book Starry Eyed. According to the letter from the board, MOPS believes these mystical ideas are a good way to spark conversation within MOPS.  In addition to Rob Bell (modern day controversial teacher), the material references is Carl Sagan, Albert Schweitzer (a mystic against justification by faith), and Carl Jung (the father of self-actualization).

This is the time to write more letters to MOPS International.  This is the time to read the source material and watch the videos for yourselves. This is the time to take action and ask your ministry partner MOPS to be transparent in theological matters and enforce MOPS' Statement of Faith or change it.

In His Grace,

Sarah Wilkins
MOPS, Emmanuel Enid
sarah.wilkinsdevconsulting@gmail.com

Sources:

Listen for yourself to John Philip Newell's lecture on Listening for the Heartbeat of God: An Introduction to Celtic Christianity.  

Listen for yourself to Rob Bell's lecture on Everything Is Spiritual. 


EDIT - At the request of several readers, MOPS Response to Sarah Wilkins' initial Open Letter of Concern is posted below ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOPS International

OPEN LETTER FROM MOPS BOARD: 

Dear Sarah: 

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts about MOPS and our 2016 materials. It is clear from your letter that you are passionate about MOPS as a vehicle to point moms toward Jesus. The MOPS board of directors and leadership team share that passion. This has always been the bottom-line mission of MOPS.

The leaders' materials for the Starry Eyed theme state very clearly that a variety of resources are provided as springboards for deeper conversation about individual relationships with Jesus. We deeply value the trust that churches have in the resources that we provide. We regret that some of these materials designed to encourage discussion with moms who don't currently follow Jesus, have been interpreted instead as promoting a non-Christ-centered theology. This is not our intent. In the future, we will enhance our editorial process to more carefully screen for such potential misunderstandings. 

Additional evangelism and devotional tools surrounding this year's theme are available to all leaders via MOPS website. These include monthly devotionals, tips for sharing your Christian journey, Bible studies and more, for your group to download for your MOPS moms.

Thank you for sharing your concerns. They have been heard. Rest assured that MOPS is still a very much gospel-centered mission. As we begin this MOPS year, we would ask that all MOPS leaders and groups unite under the vision of sharing Jesus with moms who don't know Him yet. This is the heart of MOPS. We can be Starry Eyed in this endeavor, with excitement and enthusiasm for this mission, with His light in our eyes and His strength in the darkness.

In Jesus' name,

Roger Franklin

Chairman

On behalf of the MOPS International board of directors

---

Amos, the Earthquake of 760 B.C., and Jesus Christ

September 10, 2016, 9:50 am

≫ Next: 5 Things Women Who Love Jesus and Believe the Bible Should Know about Their Personal Identity

≪ Previous: MOPS and Its Move Away from Biblical Christianity

$

0

0

One of my favorite verses is Luke 24:27 where Jesus walks with two men on a road to Emmaus, and as they walk, Jesus quotes the Scriptures (what we now call the Old Testament), and "beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explains to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself"(Luke 24:27).

Everything in the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ.

If our teaching of Scripture doesn't center on the Person and work of Jesus Christ, then we have missed the message of the Bible. Let me put it another way. If in a desire to be "relevant" to a generation of people ignorant of the Bible, we deliver a message to others void of Jesus Christ - in other words, we attempt to improve peoples' lives without reference to Jesus Christ's work on their behalf - then we have preached a vapid message that actually changes nobody.

The grace of God in Christ is the sole message that allows people to discover "contentmentwhatever the circumstances" (Philippians 4:11), and it is the only message that sets sinners free.

Notice the Scriptures Jesus used as He taught others about Himself. "Beginning with Moses and all the prophets."All the prophets; not some. All. These prophets wrote the last 17 books of the Old Testament; probably some of the most ignored books in the Bible, but Jesus used them to explain "what was said in the Scriptures concerning Himself"(Luke 24:27).

A great little memory aid for learning the 39 books of the Old Testament is to use three numbers:

17 - 5 - 17

The first 17 books of the Old Testament are books about the history of Israel, from the creation of Adam (4000 B.C.) to the rebuilding of the Temple and the walls of the city of Jerusalem (400 B.C.), which had been destroyed by the Babylonians (586 B.C.).

The next 5 books of the Old Testament are books of poetry (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon).

The final 17 books of the Old Testament are books of prophecy. These books of prophecy are written by the prophets that Jesus mentions in Luke 24:27. So in the Old Testament, there are these 39 books:

17 books of history, 5 books of poetry, 17 books of prophecy.

One could further break down the Old Testament like this:

(5 - 12) - 5 - (5 - 12).  

The first 5 books of Old Testament history are called the Pentateuch (or "the five books of Law"), also known as the 5 books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy ). The next 12 books of history deal with the nation of Israel to (400 B.C.). The time break between the close of Old Testament Scriptures and the coming of Christ in the beginning of the New Testament is approximately 400 years. During this inter-Testamental time period of silence, religious sects like the Pharisees and the Sadducees arise in Israel, which is why you don't read about them in the Old Testament history of Israel. So the 17 books of history can be further broken down into 5 - 12.

Then come the 5 books of poetry.

Finally, the 17 books of prophecy that close Old Testament, just like the first 17 books of history that open the Old Testament, can also be broken down 5 - 12. The first 5 books of prophecy (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel) are called the Major Prophets, and the last 12 booksof prophecy (which are also the last 12 books of the Old Testament) are called the Minor Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi).

All the prophets prophesied to Israel during a period of approximately 500 years, between the death of Solomon (931 B.C.), which resulted in the split of Israel into the northern kingdom (Israel) and the southern kingdom (Judah), to the close of the Old Testament history of the Jews (400 B.C.). All the prophets, both major and minor, either prophesied to the northern kingdom of Israel or the southern kingdom of Judah. The Minor Prophets are called "minor" not because their message is less important, but because their books are shorter than the books written by the five major prophets.

So to repeat, the Old Testament is composed of these 39 books:

17 (History) - 5 (Poetry) - 17 (Prophecy)

Jesus said allthe prophets - their stories, their messages, their lives, their situations - teach us about Him. Let me show you how Jesus is portrayed in all the prophets by using the prophet Amos as an example. 

"The words of Amos, one of the shepherds of Tekoa—the vision he saw concerning Israel two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Jehoash was king of Israel." (Amos 1:1). 

Amos was as shepherd from a small city (Tekoa) just south of Jerusalem. He is called by God to go north to prophesy to the northern kingdom of Israel, telling the Israelites to repent of breaking God's covenant with Israel (established at Mt. Sinai), or they would face catastrophe as a nation. The covenant agreement Israel had with God was an "if...then..." covenant. If Israel would obeyed God's laws as a nation, then God would bless Israel. But if Israel disobeyed God, then

"All these curses will come on you and overtake you: You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country. Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed. The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks. You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out. The Lord will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him" (Deuteronomy 29:15-20) 

Remember, Amos prophesied to the northern kingdom of Israel. Of the 19 kings of northern Israel, not one of them was righteous. They were all evil. But before God fulfilled the promised judgment of sending a foreign nation upon northern Israel to destroy them for violations of His covenant, God sent to them various prophets, including Amos, to urge Israel to repent and to warn Israel of their impending judgment if they did not.

Amos beautifully pictures Jesus Christ in His ministry to Israel. 

1. Both Amos and Jesus Christ were resisted by the priests of Israel. “Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent to Jeroboam king of Israel, saying, ‘Amos has conspired against you in the midst of the house of Israel. The land is not able to bear all his words.’ … Then Amaziah said to Amos: ‘Go, you seer! Flee to the land of Judah. There eat bread, and there prophesy. But never again prophesy at Bethel” (Amos 7:10-13). 

2. Amos, like Jesus Christ, came from a humble background.“Then Amos answered, and said to Amaziah: ‘I was no prophet, nor was I a son of a prophet, but I was a sheep breeder and a tender of sycamore fruit. Then the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said to me, “Go, prophesy to My people Israel” (Amos 7:14-15). 

3. Amos, like the Messiah, worked as a shepherd. The shepherd imagery found in Amos points toward Jesus Christ as the Great Shepherd, the Good Shepherd, and the Chief Shepherd. Amos shepherded sheep; Jesus shepherded people. Jesus called His disciples "My little flock" (Luke 12:32)

4. Amos, like Jesus Christ, was a master teacher who used vivid illustrations in his teaching style. Like Christ, Amos would use nature; birds, flowers, and a host of natural, everyday things to help Israel see God's mercy and righteous judgment (see Amos 3). 

5. Amos, like the Messiah, claimed divine inspiration. Amos uses the phrase, “This is what the LORD says” about forty times in his book. Jesus declared, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).

6. Amos, like the Messiah, was charged with treason (Amos 7:10; John 19:12). 

7. Amos, like Jesus Christ, decried the selfishness of the wealthy (Amos 6:4-6; Luke 12:15-21). 

8. Both Amos and Jesus Christ came to declare God's mercy to the nations. This mercy is seen in the Person and work of Jesus Christ in establishing a New Covenant (agreement) with the world, not just the Jews (see Acts 15:16-17 and Amos 9:11-12; also see Acts 7:42-43 and Amos 5:25-27).

But the stunning manner in which Amos is a picture of Jesus Christ is found in the timing (Amos 1:1) of Amos' message judgment to northern Israel (Amos 3:11-12) which perfectly matches the timing (Matthew 24:1-3) of Jesus Christ's message of judgment to descendants of Judah (Matthew 24:34-35), who in Jesus' day had assumed the name "Israel" and were called "Jews."

Let me explain.

In Amos 1:1, we are told Amos prophesied the destruction of northern Israel"two years before the earthquake."Oklahoma is now the nation's center for earthquake shaking. We have more earthquakes than any other place in the world. Last week, we had a 5.8 magnitude quake, which shook our house to the point Rachelle and I thought about evacuating! But... for an earthquake to strike Israel in the days of Amos and be described as "THE earthquake," then that earthquake must have been a big one.

It was.

Archaeologists excavating the ancient city of Hazor in northern Israel tell us that the earthquake referenced in Amos 1:1, was an 8.0 magnitude earthquake, and it occurred in 760 B.C. - a date that precisely aligns with the the reigns of King Uzziah of Judah and King Jeroboam II Israel, both of whom are mentioned in Amos 1:1.

Now we can precisely date the prophecy Amos regarding the destruction of Israel as 762 B.C., which is "two years before the earthquake"(Amos 1:1).

40 years after Amos' prophecy, in 722 B.C.,  (a generation among the Jews is 40 years),  Assyria - the world's first great empire - descended from the north and devastated northern Israel.

The Assyrians took the men of the 10 northern tribes of Israel into captivity, desolated the major cities of northern Israel (Dan, Bethel, Samaria, etc...), then brought in pagan men to intermarry the Israeli women. The descendants of these mixed marriages were called "Samaritans." The Jews in Jesus' day hated the Samaritans (e.g. abbreviation of "Judites" or people of the southern Kingdom of Judah). The Jews would avoid traveling through the territory (Samaria) of the Samaritans when they went from Jerusalem to Galilee, preferring to mingle in their travels to the festivals with the Gentiles on the eastern side of the Jordan rather than the "half-breeds" of Samaria on the western side of the Jordan River.

But Jesus  "had to go through Samaria" (John 4:4). during His ministry, because His mission was to bring "living Water" (John 4:1-14) to all people, in a Samaritan woman at the well that the Jews would shun as an outcast. Religious people reject those unlike them; Jesus comes to set half-breeds free.

The stunning way in which Amos picturesJesus is in this manner:  Jesus did exactly what Amos did, and prophesied the destruction of Israel forty years before it occurred.

In A.D. 30, Jesus told His disciples that the end of Israel was coming (see Matthew 24). Everything in Matthew 24 that Jesus said about the destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem, and the scattering of the Jews, exactly parallels the things Amos said 700 years earlier about the destruction of the cities of the northern kingdom of Israel and the scattering of the ten northern tribes.

Even more fascinating is the fact that in A.D 70, exactly 40 years after Jesus prophesied the coming destruction, the Romans came to Jerusalem and desolated the Temple and the city of Jerusalem and scattered the Jews.  This is exactly the same time (e.g. "a generation" see Matthew 24:34) that passed between Amos' prophesy of destruction (762 B.C.) and the fulfillment of the prophecy when the Assyrians came and desolated northern Israel (722 B.C.).

Matthew 24 is a vivid prophecy of the end of the Old Covenant with southern Israel (the Jews) and the establishment of a New Agreement with the world, a prophecy of Jesus that is pictured perfectly through Amos' life and ministry.

Those who view Matthew 24 as a picture of "the end of the world" have made the fundamental mistake of not seeing that everything in the Bible is about the Person and work of Jesus Christ to set sinners free!  It's Christ's first coming that should be emphasized! Sure, He's coming again for you, me, and everyone else (you and I will die!), but if our message is more about the world, politics, current events, culture, and the end of the world, than it is the Person and work of Jesus Christ to change lives now, then we've missed the message of the Bible.

Jesus is the subject of the Bible, and "beginning with Moses and all the prophets" it is possible to see the Person and work of our Savior in ushering in a New Agreement whereby sinners who trust Him and His work are "right with God" and free from condemnation (Romans 10:1) through faith. This New Covenant is not a conditional covenant of promises and curses based upon our obedience, but it is an unconditional, eternal agreement where "all the promises of God has made are yes and amen in Christ"(II Corinthians 1:20).  More importantly, this faith in Christ brings a union with God, whereby the person of faith becomes the "temple of the Spirit of God" (I Corinthians 6:19), and this life of God in the soul of man brings the power needed to transform any sinner from the inside out. Christ in us is our hope of transformation. We love people like He loves us; even our enemies (see John 13:34).

When you understand that everything in the Bible is about Jesus Christ and what He has accomplished for His people, then you can declare with the Apostle Paul:

"But whatever was gain to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the Law, but a righteousness that comes through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of His resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead." (Philippians 3:7-11). 

5 Things Women Who Love Jesus and Believe the Bible Should Know about Their Personal Identity

September 16, 2016, 2:52 pm

≫ Next: Anachronic Anastasis: The Lost Art of Teaching Christ's Powerful Promise to Resurrect the Dead

≪ Previous: Amos, the Earthquake of 760 B.C., and Jesus Christ

$

0

0

I have the privilege of knowing many Christian women who love Jesus, believe the Bible, respect their husbands, and have a strong distaste for any beliefs or behaviors that contradict the Scriptures. I have empathy for the struggle these Christ-honoring women have with those who advocate "gender equality." They have long heard the significant men in their lives, including their pastors from the pulpit, declare the Scriptures teach that though women are equal in worth to men, they are not equal to men in authority. Men, it is declared, are designed by God to be "over" women in Christ's church, are the God-ordained authority in Christian families, and are the ones to whom Christian women are to "submit as unto the Lord."

If you are one of those women who struggle with the notion of gender equality because you believe it contradicts the Scriptures you love and the Lord you serve, then I would encourage you to read this short primer from a man who loves the Scriptures as much as you (and believes them to be the inspired and infallible Word of God), desires to honor Christ in his family and his church, and has as strong of a distaste for beliefs or behaviors that contradict Scripture as you. In other words, I am a conservative, Bible-believing, Christ-honoring, evangelical - just like you. There are 5 important things I want to remind your identity as a Christian woman.

1. The only spiritual authority in your life is Jesus Christ, for you are called a "priest unto God." 

Christian men who teach that Christian women are "under the spiritual authority" of another man - be it their husband, or their pastor, or their father - have substituted the authority of a man for the authority of Christ. When the Bible calls a Christian woman a "priest unto God" (Revelation 1:6; I Peter 2:5), it means that nobody comes between you as a woman who follows Jesus and Jesus' authority in your life. There will always be gifted men and women who come alongside you to encourage you, to give you wisdom, and to help you in life - but nobody else has authority over you. The world lives by the concepts of authority and power, granting positions of power and authority to people so that they can rule over and control others. Jesus said to His followers, "This is not the way it shall be among you. Whoever wishes to be great among you must become your servant" (Matthew 20:25-26). Notice, Jesus did not say the great ones in His church are His servants; Jesus said the great ones in His church are your servants. Meaning, any man who demands your submission and uses power or authority to dominate and rule over you is contradicting the teachings of Christ, and is a man that should be resisted for his own good.

2. You are no more released from the obligation to love your husband than your husband is released from the obligation of submitting to and serving you. 

When the Apostle Paul gives instructions for how a Christian man and woman are to relate to one another in the family and the home (see Ephesians 5:21-33), he says that husbands and wives are to love each other as Christ loves the church and to serve each other as Christ serves the church. For some reason, evangelical conservative men who love the Scriptures unintentionally skip or ignore Ephesians 5:21, where Paul says we all - men and women - are to submit to one another by serving one another. It's almost as if conservative, Bible-believing Christian men and women think that the role in marriage is for the husband to love, and the wife to submit. No, not at all. The role in a Christian marriage is for both the husband and wife to love each other and to submit to each other. In a shame-filled, curse-filled home, the husband and wife will attempt to manipulate and control the other person, always fighting to get ahead and above the other. But in a grace-filled home where Christ is Lord, the man and the woman are always seeking to serve the other, fighting (if you will) to come under and support the other person. (See this article for a more detailed explanation of a curse-filled home). By the way, for the man who says, "But if I serve my wife, then I'm not reflecting Christ's power and authority over the church. When does Christ ever serve the church?" - Answer: Jesus Himself says that in His Kingdom, He (Jesus Christ) serves His church (see Luke 12;37). Therefore, the Christian husband is just as obligated to serve his wife, as his wife is obligated to love her husband like Christ loves the church. It's mutual love, mutual submission, and mutual servanthood.

3. The image of God is as much seen in the woman He created, as it is in the man He created.

Many Christians have an image of God as a man.  The invisible, immortal God is "not a man." In fact, God will often represent Himself as female.  God says to His people:"Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!" (Isaiah 49:15). In Calvin's commentary on this verse, the great orthodox theologian writes,

 "God did not satisfy himself with proposing the example of a father, but in order to express his very strong affection, God chose to liken himself to a mother, and calls His people not merely children, but the fruit of His womb, towards which there is usually a warmer affection.” (John Calvin)

In Genesis 1:27 it is said, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." The male and the female were created by God. The male and the female both bear the image of God. The male and the female are both included in the Hebrew word adam (man) -"So God created (adam )... He created them." Notice that God says "so that they (the man and the woman) rule over the animals.…" (Genesis 1;26). The male and the female were both designed by God as equals in the co-regency of the world God created.

Any system, any society, any organization that places one gender as an authority over the other, whether it be patriarchal or matriarchal in nature, is a direct violation of the command and design of the Creator God. When God calls and gifts a person to accomplish a task, restrictions to the accomplishment of that task never take the form of gender. The notion that women can't do some spiritual things that men can do in the church or in the home - like teach, lead, etc. - is a contradiction of the Scriptures themselves.

4. Your identity and worth as an individual should come solely from who you are by the grace of God in Jesus Christ, and not your marriage.

Jesus said, "At the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage..." (Matthew 22:30). Marriage is something that is not eternal. At some point, marriage will end for everyone.  If a Christian marriage comes to an end, it is possible for the newly single Christian to find the same fulfillment and joy here and now that he or she will experience eternally. A divorcee who trusts Christ, a graced widow or widower, or even Christian singles who have never married  have as much personal value, identity and significance as any married Christian. In fact, it might be said that there is an advantage for the Christian who is not married; he or she has the opportunity to understand how to function individually now as Christ intends us to function eternally in the resurrection. .

Since all marriages will one day end for everyone, then there should be little emphasis on the form of one's family, and a much greater emphasis on the function of individual Christians within whatever kind of family unit they are in. What is our function or purpose as followers of Jesus? We are to love others as Christ has loved us (John 13:34).  When we learn to function in love, we never fail; even though the form our family once took has come to an end (I Corinthians 13:8).

5. Discover how God has gifted you, love and serve other men and women, and never back down from a servant leadership role, even if you find yourself leading men.

For years I have sought to show that the teachings of the New Covenant Scriptures and the emphasis of Jesus Christ concerning leadership and service in the Christian church and Christian homes is based on giftedness and not gender. Your identity as a Christian woman is found in the grace of God in Christ, and His callings and gifts to you. Avoid placing restrictions on yourself because you are a woman.

May God, by His grace, set you free to be.

Anachronic Anastasis: The Lost Art of Teaching Christ's Powerful Promise to Resurrect the Dead

September 24, 2016, 1:57 pm

≫ Next: Forgiving the Inexcusable Evidences God's Mercy

≪ Previous: 5 Things Women Who Love Jesus and Believe the Bible Should Know about Their Personal Identity

$

0

0

Edit: The following article is a collection of views obtained from reading Luther, Stott, Hughes and other conservative evangelicals, and does not necessarily reflect my views. It is offered as a caution to those with a tendency for dogmatism regarding last things.

The resurrection of the dead is a subject of intense interest to every rational mind. Life is short. The grave lies open before us. Every adult has at least once asked, “If someone dies, will they live again?” (Job 14:14). When we gather for a funeral of a love one, we ask ourselves “Will we see them again?—Is there a resurrection of the dead?”

Every Bible-believing Christian says, "Yes, there is a resurrection of the dead."

Yet that same Christian will most likely tell you that their loved one is already in heaven and is enjoying life, waiting for us to join them in heaven. Dead Christians who already enjoy the fruits of the resurrected life before the resurrection, is like a team crowned Super Bowl champion before the game is even played.

Anochronicanastasis, the title of this article, means a discrepancy in the timing of the resurrection. When the timing of the resurrection is missed, the power of the resurrection is lost.

Jesus said:

"Do not marvel this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the graves will hear My voice and come out, those who did good to the resurrection (anastasis) of life, and those who did evil to the resurrection (anastasis) of judgment" (John 5:28-29). 

Most Christians would say the general resurrection that Jesus describes in the above two verses has not yet happened (and I would agree). Yet most Christians also believe that dead Christians are now in heaven enjoying life?

How can this be?

If the dead have not yet been raised, how can those who die in Christ enjoy "standing up again" - the literal meaning of anastasis - if they still remain in their graves?

Martin Luther, the Great Reformer who gave us the 95 Theses and helped restore the biblical truth of justification by grace through faith, would not be comfortable with modern evangelical funerals. As he would listen to pastors extol the blessings that the departed are now enjoying, he would think that these pastors have missed the timing of the resurrected life.

Lutheran scholar Dr. Taito A. Kantonen (1900 -1993) describes Luther's position on death and the resurrection with these words:

Luther, with a greater emphasis on the resurrection, preferred to concentrate on the scriptural metaphor of sleep in reference to death. For just as one who falls asleep and reaches morning unexpectedly when he awakes, without knowing what has happened to him, Luther believed, "we shall suddenly rise on the last day without knowing how we have come into death and through death." At death, ''We shall sleep, until He comes and knocks on the little grave and says, 'Doctor Martin, get up! Then I shall rise in a moment, and be with Him forever.'"

Why do contemporary evangelical Christians, contrary to Luther, believe that people who die continue to live uninterrupted, without yet experiencing Christ's promise to raise the dead (anastasis)? Answer: Because many Christians assume (wrongly) that the Bible teaches man is naturally and inherently immortal.

Definitions of Immortal

Immortal - "Exempt from death; never to die; never-ending; perpetual" - Johnson's Dictionary.
Immortal - "Exempt from death; able never to die; perpetual" - London Encyclopedia
Immortal - "That which lasts to all eternity, having in it no principle of corruption" Brittanica
Immortal - "The condition of being not subject to death." Popular Encyclopedia

Immortality by definition means the state or quality of not being subject to death. The translators of Scripture used the word immortality to translate the Greek terms athanasia, which means  "deathlessness," and aphtharsia, which means "incorruptibility."

Do you remember the birthday candles placed on your cake as a practical joke, candles that no matter how hard you tried to blow them out, you couldn't extinguish them? Christians who believe in natural immortality believe death can't extinguish life.

But Luther and other evangelicals have believed the Scriptures teach differently.

They see the Bible to teach clearly that God alone has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16). They feel the Scriptures declare that immortality is something that is to be sought (Romans 2:7). Immortality seems to be brought to man by the Good News of Jesus Christ appearance on earth (2 Timothy 1:10). Scripture seems to teach that a man can gain immortality when he receives the gift of eternal life (Romans 6:23). And finally, Luther and others believed that immortality is put on at the last trumpet when the resurrection (anastasis) occurs for those who have died with faith in Christ (1 Cor. 15:53).

Not so, say other Christians.  God made man naturally and inherently immortal. Therefore, a man must live forever, not only beyond death but also beyond the second death, for ever and ever -  because you can't snuff out a man's life.

Martin Luther believed the Scriptures taught immortality was conditional, and could only be received as a gift from God, and that it was not natural to any man, even Adam and Eve in the beginning. The "Tree of Life" which gave mortal man immortality was eaten of daily, but after Adam and Eve sinned, they were barred from the "Tree of Life" lest "he reach out his hand and take from the tree of life and eat, and live forever" (Genesis 3:22).

Luther felt that if a Christian believes man is inherently immortal, then you believe man is exempt from death, just as God is exempt from death. And, of course, if a man dies but continues to live, then he has not actually died.

John R.W. Stott and Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, two contemporary conservative evangelicals and authors, have both written in opposition to inherent immortality. Like Luther, these two men believed the Bible teaches conditional immortality.  Stott expressed hesitation in placing his views on conditional immortality in writing because:

"I have great respect for long standing tradition which claims to be a true interpretation of Scripture, and do not lightly set it aside, and partly because the unity of the world-wide evangelical constituency has always meant much to me." (Evangelical Essentials, Stott, p. 319).

In other words, though Stott believed the Scriptures teach in conditional immortality, he refrained from writing a great deal on his views because modern evangelicals almost universally believe in inherent immortality, and Stott did not wish to upset the proverbial apple-cart.

Philip Hughes, who lectured at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, and who also served as one of the editors of Westminster Theological Journal, had no similar hesitations in making his views known. According to John Wenham, Hughes believed that:

"It would be hard to imagine a concept more confusing than that of death which means existing endlessly without the power of dying."

Wenham also said Dr. Hughes wrote him a letter where he stated he had '"long been of this judgment and common Christian candour compelled me to state my position"in writing.

Drs. Stott and Hughes are not alone in their belief that conditional immortality is a biblical truth. Scholar William Reed Huntington (1838-1909), in his book (available online) entitled Conditional Immortality: Plain Sermons on a Top of Present Interest, gives a manuscript of a message he preached based on two texts:

"...What shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God?" (I Peter 4:17)

"...That they shall be destroyed forever" (Psalm 42:7). 

In this message, Huntington speaks clearly on his belief in conditional immortality:

"Search the Scriptures through and through, my friends, and point, if you can, to a single sentence in which it is directly asserted that man is a being who will inevitably exist forever. Strong statements to the effect that man is naturally mortal are strewn with melancholy frequency over those pages, but nowhere is he declared to be immortal apart from the quickening power of Him who only hath immortality to give." (pages 102-103)

English Baptist pastor and theologian Henry Hamlet (H.H.) Dobney (1809-1883) wrote a book entitled The Scripture Doctrine of Future Punishment where he writes:

"The Scriptures attach greatly more importance to the glorious fact of a resurrection from the dead, than the majority of evangelical Christians of the present day are wont to do...The Scriptures nowhere represent any of the human race as consciously existent in a perfectly disembodied state, as naked spirits ... there is no intimation (in Scripture) of a disembodied state." (pages 128-129). 

Greek scholar Charles Frederick Hudson (1821-1867) wrote Christ Our Life, and in this thoroughly biblical book he said:

"The Scriptures speak a thousand times of God's being immortal, but never of man's immortality" (p. 21). 

When one reads the gospels and the writings of the early apostles, the emphasis of the Good News was on the resurrection of the dead. Author Hugh T. Kerr in  Preaching in the Early Church has observed that the resurrection is "the trumpet note of Apostolic preaching." (p. 38).

Jesse Witherspoon in Sent Forth to Preach explains why the resurrection was central to the early apostles:

"They saw triumph in the Resurrection. It was the Resurrection that revealed the triumph of the cross; it proclaimed the Redeemer in the horizon of his glorious Divine Sonship. It proved his power over the last enemy-- death .... They preached a Christ who was Conqueror, and his face alive and glorious was never absent from a single sermon. All their preaching was in the key of the Resurrection. The decisive battle was already won" (p. 99).

The Apostle Paul stated "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23).

Jesus Christ, the Creator of all things, has made an incredible promise to resurrect both the wicked and the good. He will call every person by name on the day of the general resurrection, and those who know Him will be made to stand up to receive immortality as a gift, and those who don't know Him will be made to stand up to be judged for their works.

Judgment for those without Christ will vary according to the deeds done in this life. Punitive justice will be far more severe for the very wicked than it will be for others. When punitive justice has been meted out by God, the unrighteous will be handed over to die a second time, an event the Scripture calls "the second death" (Revelation 20:14).

At the resurrection, the righteous will be gifted with immortality (eternal life). The Apostle Paul wrote:

"Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory'" (1 Cor. 15:51-54).

Paul makes it clear that God does not bestow immortality upon the believer at death, but at the resurrection. It is then that "this mortal" shall "put on immortality." While John writes that we are chosen to receive the gift of eternal life when we believe on Jesus Christ (1 John 5:11-13), the actual
realization of this gift takes place when the last trumpet sounds and Christ returns to "raise the dead."

Those who believe in conditional immortality understand that to die in this life does not mean a cessation of existence. Physical death is only a state of temporary unconsciousness until the resurrection that Christ promised (John 5:28-29). The Bible repeatedly calls this intermediate state between death and the resurrection "sleep" (see I Kings 2:10; II Chronicles 21:1; Job 14:10-12; Psalm 13:3; Jeremiah 51:39; Daniel 12:2; I Corinthians 15:51-52; I Thessalonians 4:13-17; II Peter 3:4 as examples).

Though the notion that a human being is not naturally immortal may sound strange to modern evangelical ears, the major question that should be asked is "Does the Bible teach conditional immortality rather than natural immortality?"

If, as one concludes that the Bible does indeed teach conditional immortality, then the second question Christians often ask is, "Are there other Christians throughout the centuries who have believed the Scriptures teach conditional immortality?"

The answer is a yes.

Conditional immortality has been believed by many Bible-believing Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists and other Christians throughout the centuries.

Some of these Christians include Martin Luther, William Tyndale, John Frith, George Wishart, Robert Overton, Samuel Richardson, John Milton, George Wither, John Jackson, John Canne, Archbishop John Tillotson, Dr. Isaac Barrow, Dr. William Coward, Henry Layton, Joseph N. Scott, M.D., Dr. Joseph Priestly, Peter Pecard, Archdeacon Francis Blackburne, Bishop William Warburton, Samuel Bourn, Dr. William Whiston, Dr. John Tottie, Prof. Henry Dodwell, Bishop Timothy Kendrick, Dr. William Thomson, Dr. Edward White, Dr. John Thomas, H.H. Dobney; Archbishop Richard Whately; Dean Henry Alford, James Panton Ham, Charles F. Hudson, Dr. Robert W. Dale, Dean Frederick W. Farrar, Hermann Olshausen, Canon Henry Constable, William Gladstone, Joseph Parker, Bishop John J.S. Perowne, Sir George G. Stokes, Dr. W.A. Brown, Dr. J. Agar Beet, Dr. R.F. Weymouth, Dr. Lyman Abbott, Dr. Edward Beecher, Dr. Emmanuel Petavel-Olliff, Dr. Franz Delitzsch, Bishop Charles J. Ellicott, Dr. George Dana Boardman, J.H. Pettingell; twentieth century—Canon William H.M. Hay Aitken, Eric Lewis, Dr. William Temple, Dr. Gerardus van der Leeuw, Dr. Aubrey R. Vine, Dr. Martin J. Heinecken, David R. Davies, Dr. Basil F.C. Atkinson, Dr. Emil Brunner, Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr, Dr. T.A. Kantonen,  and Dr. D.R.G. Owen.

It would be well worth your time to Google any of the names above and read their writings online. It is very unwise to accept the teaching of someone else without critically examining the issue for yourself. "We are to search the Scriptures," we are told, "for in them we will see testimony of Christ." Your life - in it's essence, existence, and sustenance - rests in the power and authority of Jesus Christ. He holds the "keys of life and death" (Revelation 1:18).

I close with a few applicable truths that precede from a belief in conditional immortality:

1. The resurrection from the dead is the "Christian hope." If resurrection occurs at the same time for all those who died in Christ during all generations, then everyone is raised from the dead at the same time. That means our loved ones will be raised by the power of Christ - to enjoy the blessings of Christ - on the same day we are raised from the dead (or) on the same day we "are caught up to be with Christ" (I Thessalonians 4:17) if we're alive when He comes. 

2. When you close your eyes in death, the next conscious thought you have - a thought which is instantaneous to final closing of your eyes - is the hearing of Christ's voice (John 5:28-29) when He  calls your name to raise you from my grave. It's like going to sleep before surgery. You close your eyes and the next thing you know is you are awakened. From your perspective, the awakening is instantaneous to the closing of your eyes, regardless of how much time has passed.

3.  When the bestowal of the gift of life eternal is tied to the resurrection, then the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the first fruits of all those who rise in Him seems to becoms the center of Christian teaching. It is the resurrection to eternal life that was the preaching of the apostles and the early church (see I Corinthians 15). Without the resurrection, our faith is in vain.

4. It is only with an understanding of conditional immortality that one can comprehend that the rewards of Christ are received equally by all those who are raised in Him (e.g. "for we are co-heirs of Jesus Christ"Romans 8:17), while the punishments of the wicked will vary accordingly and proportionally to the evil the wicked have done in this life.

5. "But the wicked will be utterly destroyed" (Psalm 37:38), and "the righteous will walk on the ashes of the wicked in that day" (Malachi 4:3). Conditional immortality allows for the judgment of the wicked to vary according to their sins - sins which will be exposed and punished by a righteous God who takes vengeance on evil doers punitively, personally, and proportionally. In the end, after judicial punishment, the wicked will be handed over to "the second death."

Whether you agree with Luther, Stott, Hughes and other evangelicals who teach that immortality is conditional, my prayer is that the anastasis of the dead will become central in your preaching and teaching, and you will not succumb to the common error of assigning immortal life to people without the vivifying and sustaining grace and power of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Forgiving the Inexcusable Evidences God's Mercy

September 28, 2016, 9:45 am

≫ Next: He that sells what isn't his'n must buy it back or go to pris'n - Corrupt Politics vs. Cornelius Vanderbilt

≪ Previous: Anachronic Anastasis: The Lost Art of Teaching Christ's Powerful Promise to Resurrect the Dead

$

0

0

Have you ever been in a position of wanting to "get back" at somebody you think has behaved inexcusably? Have you ever felt a struggle within to forgive another person? Do you wrestle with a spirit of unforgiveness - fighting against it - or do you succumb to bitterness and shut out those who've wounded you or others?

In a classic work by C.S. Lewis called The Weight of Glory, Lewis shows that forgiveness of others is the irrefutable sign of God's mercy within you.  The brilliance of Lewis' work is that he shows how it's easy for a Christian to say"I forgive," but how forgiveness isn't seen in one's words; it's seen in the way one treats another human being.

In a generation when many get their news and information from Twitter's 140 character bites, Lewis's works are rarely read, much less understood. With this in mind, I am reducing four profound statements by Lewis' on the subject of forgiveness to 140 characters of less. I may tweet them at my leisure, but I must live them for my Christianity to be real. 

"You must make every effort to kill every taste of resentment in your own heart—every wish to humiliate or hurt him or to pay him out. The difference between this situation and the one in such you are asking God’s forgiveness is this. In our own case we accept excuses too easily; in other people’s we do not accept them easily enough." C.S. Lewis

Tweet:When I'm thinking about getting even with someone whose hurt me, I'm forgetting the grace and ease with which God has forgiven me.

"As regards my own sin it is a safe bet (though not a certainty) that the excuses are not really so good as I think; as regards other men’s sins against me it is a safe bet (though not a certainty) that the excuses are better than I think. One must therefore begin by attending to everything which may show that the other man was not so much to blame as we thought." C.S. Lewis

Tweet: Spending more time creating and accepting excuses for the sins of others than for my own sins is a sign I'm on the path of forgiveness.  

"But even if he is absolutely fully to blame we still have to forgive him; and even if ninety-nine percent of his apparent guilt can be explained away by really good excuses, the problem of forgiveness begins with the one percent guilt which is left over. To excuse what can really produce good excuses is not Christian character; it is only fairness. To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable, because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you." C.S. Lewis

Tweet:To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable, because God has forgiven the inexcusable in me.

"This is hard. It is perhaps not so hard to forgive a single great injury. But to forgive the incessant provocations of daily life—to keep on forgiving the bossy mother-in-law, the bullying husband, the nagging wife, the selfish daughter, the deceitful son—how can we do it? Only, I think, by remembering where we stand, by meaning our words when we say in our prayers each night ‘forgive our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us.’ We are offered forgiveness on no other terms. To refuse it is to refuse God’s mercy for ourselves. There's no hint of exceptions; God means what He says." C.S. Lewis

Tweet: My refusal to forgive evidences my rejection by God,  for my forgiveness of others is the irrefutable sign of His forgiveness of me.

He that sells what isn't his'n must buy it back or go to pris'n - Corrupt Politics vs. Cornelius Vanderbilt

October 3, 2016, 10:00 am

≫ Next: 12 Dates to Know that Make My Bible Reading Flow

≪ Previous: Forgiving the Inexcusable Evidences God's Mercy

$

0

0

People today are "up in arms' over corruption in local, state and national politicians - and well we should be. However, it's important to remember that "there's nothing new under the sun," and truth be told, people in power have been crafting laws for personal benefit since the day of Nimrod, the founder of Babylon.

One of the more fascinating stories of political corruption occurred 150 years ago in the state of New York. It revolves around a native New Yorker named Cornelius Vanderbilt. Born into poverty on Staten Island in 1794, as a teenager Vanderbilt borrowed money from his mother to purchased a small sail boat. He established a ferry from Staten Island across New York Harbor to Manhattan, and through frugal savings, hard work, and an entrepreneurial spirit, Vanderbilt eventually arose to become the wealthiest man in America.

This is a story of how crooked politicians almost took Vanderbilt down financially, but instead, Cornelius Vanderbilt took them down.

With the money Vanderbilt earned from his ferry business, Vanderbilt invested in a new invention called "steam boats." He established a steam boat business that was able to take goods back and forth from Albany to New York, bringing to the ever growing market of Manhattan the furs that frontier trappers brought to Albany from the Great Lakes region. Vanderbilt made his first fortune through this steamboat business, but he saw the proverbial "handwriting on the wall," and decided it was time to invest in railroads.

Vanderbilt bought shares in a small railroad line called the New York and Harlem Railroad in the 1850's. This line, along with the famous Hudson River Railroad line, were the only two railroad companies with access to Manhattan. In 1857, at the age of 61, Vanderbilt began buying even more shares of the New York and Harlem Railroad, and soon he became the majority owner.

Here's where it get's interesting.

The members of the Common Council of New York, what we now call New York's City Council, attempted to line their pockets by following the advice of a Wall Street mogul named Daniel Drew, who also happened to represent Harlem as a city council member.

The shares of Vanderbilt's New York to Harlem Railroad were rising. The company was profitable, and word on the street was that the city council was going to grant Vanderbilt's Railroad the right to have a trolley from Battery Park to Broadway, the length of Manhattan. A trolley was the forerunner of a modern subway, and if the Vanderbilt's railroad had this trolley business, his company's profits would soar even more.

Councilman Drew privately convinced the New York city council members to continue talking publicly about the council's desire to grant Vanderbilt's company the authority to build a streetcar line - a public discussion which only contributed to the skyrocketing share prices of Vanderbilt's New York and Harlem Railroad company.  Drew told council members that if they passed the law granting trolley authority to Vanderbilt, "but at the last minute  rescinded their decision," then the shares for the New York and Harlem railroad would plummet in price. The key to council members making money was "to sell short" New York and Harlem Railroad shares before the rescission announcement was made to the public.

The City Council's bill authorizing the construction of the streetcar line was passed on 23rd April 1863. Council members began selling short Vanderbilt's railroad shares over the next two days.  Vanderbilt had some idea of what was happening and he warned the Council members to cease their actions. However, the city council continued with their illicit plan and formally rescinded the streetcar line franchise on the afternoon of 25th June 1863 for the sole purpose of making themselves rich.

Boom! People the newspapers screamed that the New York and Harlem Railroad stock would plummet during trading the next day.

But it didn't happen. The stock price of the Vanderbilt's company actually rose.

How could this happen?

Unbeknownst to the New York's city council members, Vanderbilt had purchased all of the New York and Harlem railroad stock available. He was not only the majority owner, he was now the sole owner.

When you sell a stock short and there are no shares to trade, the price of the stock rises. It is what is called a short squeeze. Short sellers can't do anything but watch in horror as the price of the stock they promised to buy back goes up in price rather than down. Unwise short selling has bankrupted many an investor.

New York city council members came to Vanderbilt and begged him to help them. Remember, these politicians sought to ruin Vanderbilt through politically corrupt business dealings. But instead, Vanderbilt had them over a barrel. The politicians were obligated to buy Vanderbilt's stock, but Vanderbilt wasn't selling yet - and the price of the stock was rising.

When the short squeeze was over and Vanderbilt finally allowed the city council out of their short positions, the price of the stock was at $180 a share, having grown from the $8 a share Vanderbilt first paid for the stock when he began investing. Vanderbilt made millions off the crooked desires of New York politicians.

Daniel Drew, the architect of the corrupt scheme to line his and other politicians' pockets with ill-gotten gains waxed philosophical about his loss of over a million dollars (over $20,000,000 in today's money). Daniel Drew one of the few politicians in New York who could afford such a massive loss in 1863 because he had already made a fortune on Wall Street. The poem that Drew wrote is something that the federal government of the United States should pay attention to in 2016, particularly since politicians have "borrowed" the Social Security money of participants - money that isn't theirs - with a "promise" to pay it back. Instead, they are funding their respective district's with money that is not theirs. Daniel Drew wrote:

"He that sells what isn't his'n, must buy it back or go to pris'n."

Since those in political power today are not prone to put themselves in prison, I've written another poem that more likely parallels the future of the American government come November 2016.

"The politicians who from others steal will find themselves replaced on Capitol Hill."

12 Dates to Know that Make My Bible Reading Flow

October 7, 2016, 11:38 am

≫ Next: Just Be

≪ Previous: He that sells what isn't his'n must buy it back or go to pris'n - Corrupt Politics vs. Cornelius Vanderbilt

$

0

0

Most people understand that time is measured by the coming of God as a Man to this world, an act called "the Incarnation." Chili with "meat" is "chili con carne." So too, when the invisible, immortal, immutable God who created all things took upon Himself meat (flesh), we call it the In-carn-ation.

We measure time around God humbling Himself to become a Man. 

Why is it important to know that God has come as a Man? The mission of the Messiah was to die for sinners, bearing our punishment, that we might live forever. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. God can't die. Man can. "For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people's sins against them. And He gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation" (II Corinthians 5:19). 

B.C. is an abbreviation for "Before Christ" and A.D. is the Latin abbreviation "Anno Domoni" which in English means, "The Year of Our Lord." When the abbrevations are properly used,  B.C. is placed after the year, and A.D. comes before the year (ex. 1500 B.C. or A.D. 1500) Since the 8th century A.D., Western Civilization has dated events with the tags B.C. or A.D. to quickly tell if those events occurred before the birth of Christ or after. 

Prior to the coming of Christ, dates were measured in relation to the first Olympics (776 B.C.) so that people would say "in the third year of the XI Olympiad"which would be the date we know as 743 B.C., since an Olympiad occurred once every four years. Later, dates would be measured by the reigns of Roman Emperors. The Jews have kept time (and still do) using the A.M. (anno mundi) which is Latin for "Year of the World." The Jews measure time from the year they believe God created the world. So, A.D. 2016 is to the Jew 5777 A.M. 

Around 1980, some influential academicians, including scientists at the Smithsonian, began using B.C.E. and C.E. to avoid having to use the name of Christ or the offensive "year of our Lord" in dating abbreviations. C.E. means "Common Era" and B.C.E. means "Before the Common Era." Of course, a person might ask "What makes our era common?" and one could respond, "The common Creator of all things has come into His Creation as a Man" (see Colossians 1:16). 

The use of B.C.E. and C.E. may be an attempt to avoid usage of Christ's name, but I am reminded that those who are ashamed of Him will one day find He is ashamed of them (see Luke 9:26). So, using the dates B.C. and A.D., the following 12 dates - when memorized - will give you a remarkable understanding of the Bible and the flow of its history. The dates I give are approximate dates until we get to the year of the first Olympics (776 B.C.), when the dates will be precise. 

4000 B.C. 

The Creation of Adam

We will let people fall all over themselves attempting to prove the age of the earth, but we will politely bow out. Whether you believe the earth and universe is "billions and billions" of years old, or relatively young (e.g. "thousands of years"), knock yourself out proving it. I only point out the creation of Adam, the first man, on this date. Scientists recently finished tracing the human genome and "discovered" that all human beings descend from one man and one woman. Science only confirmed what the Bible reveals. Since nobody was around when the first man and woman appeared, it seems to me it takes greater faith to believe all humans evolved from amoebas and apes than it does Adam and Eve were created by God in His image (see Genesis 1:27). 

2345 B.C.

The Flood of Noah

This date is easy to remember - 2 3 4 5 - years before Christ, a flood came. Some believe this flood is global and catastrophic, others believe this biblical flood is local and hyperbolic (exaggerated). As for me, since every nation of the world has a flood legend in her history, I lean toward a worldwide cataclysmic flood. God caused the population of the earth to perish because "man was evil." The re-population of the earth began again with Noah's sons (Shem, Ham and Japheth) and their descendants, from whom all the people groups of the world can be traced. The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 is a stunning study on the world's population growth, as well as a key that unlocks the door to different cultures that cover the globe. The population of the world can only be what it is today if you begin populating the world with people from scratch in 2500 B.C. Otherwise, the world's population by the scientific rate of growth (a doubling of population every 74 years) would have our world population in the trillions (instead of 7 billion). 

2000 B.C.

The Call of Abram

Abram was living in "Ur of the Chaldees" (an ancient city in modern Iraq), when God told him to leave his country, his people, and his father's family to go "to a land that I will show you" (Genesis 12:1). This call of God to Abram is key to understanding the Bible. The Creator of the world is calling Abram to Himself to "make of him a great nation" (Genesis 12:2), through whom "all the peoples of the earth will be blessed" (Genesis 12:3). This call is the beginning the nation called Israel, through whom the Messiah - who would bless all peoples of the earth - would come. Abram had a son named Isaac, and Isaac had a son named Jacob, whose name God changed to "Israel." Israel had twelve sons, from whom the 12 Tribes of Israel find their origin. Thus, in the Old Testament, God identifies Himself as "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (Exodus 3:6).

1500 B.C. 

The Call of Moses

Though this date is approximate, I believe it is very close to accurate. We know that Israel and his family went down to Egypt during a great famine and stayed because of Joseph's influence (one of Israel's sons). Over the next three centuries the Israelites "multiplied greatly"(Exodus 1:7) and grew into a mighty nation. The Pharaoh of Egypt who came to power grew afraid of the Israelites, so he enslaved them. God called an Israelite named Moses to lead His people out of their bondage in Egypt. The United States has been a nation for 240 years, less time than Israel lived in Egypt. and we have grown from 100 early settlers to 325,000,000 people. Even without population growth by "immigration" like the United States has had, its not hard to understand how Israel became a "great nation" while in Egypt. When God call Moses at the burning bush, He said, "I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."(Exodus 3:6). Moses led God's people out of Egypt back to the land that God originally gave to Abraham, the land of Canaan. When the Israelites left Egypt in the 15th century B.C., God made a covenant with them at Mt. Sinai. This conditional covenant of Law was a promise that IF Israel obeyed God, THEN Israel would be blessed by God. But IF Israel violated their conditions of the covenant, THEN Israel would experience the wrath of God. We call this covenant "the Old Covenant." Israel called it "The Law." The Law included everything about Israeli life in their new land - the calendar, the festivals, the taxes, the sacrifices, Temple worship, Sabbath days, dietary laws, civil laws, etc.,, - literally everything about Israel revolved around God's Law. Why? The Law pointed to the the Messiah who was to come through Israel to "bless all the peoples of the earth." (Genesis 12:3).  Jesus came "to fulfill the Law." Jesus is the true and faithful Israel who is fulfills the Law and deserves all the blessings of God.

1050 B.C. 

The Kingdom of Israel

God led Covenant Israel to the land of Canaan and empowered them to defeat the Canaanites and subdue the land (read Joshua and Judges). For the next four hundred years, God's people sought to live by the Covenant, but eventually they began to forget they were a special people in covenant with God. The Israelites began looking at neighboring nations with kings and wanted "a king" for themselves. They asked their prophet Samuel for God to give them a king over Israel "like other nations" (I Samuel 8). When God allowed Israel to have a king, it was the beginning of a decline that eventually led to a complete divorce of God from national Israel because Israel "broke the covenant with God" (Jeremiah 3:8)  Of course, this was all part of the providential. God's Law was intended to reveal the depths of man's sin (Romans 3:7-25) and the beauty of mankind's Savior. Jesus fulfills the Law and gives perfect righteousness and corresponding blessings from God to all those who trust Him (Philippians 3:7-11).  A kingdom is "a king's dominion" - and Israel had three kings in their history as a kingdom: 

Saul (1051-1011 B.C.) - David (101 - 971 B.C.) - Solomon (971 - 931 B.C.)

931 B.C.

The Division of the Kingdom of Israel

When Solomon died, his son Rehoboam wished to continue the heavy taxes his father had imposed to build the Temple. 10 tribes of Israel rebelled and started their own kingdom with another son of Solomon named Jeroboam. This split in Israel led to two nations. The 10 tribes formed a northern kingdom they called Israel and they moved their capital to a city they called Samaria. They built for themselves their own temple, and began to worship pagan gods. Two tribes - Judah and Benjamin - remained in the south and formed the southern kingdom called Judah. The southern kingdom kept Jerusalem as their capital, continued to worship at the Temple, and tried to keep their covenant with God. Of the nineteen kings that would eventually rule the northern kingdom of Israel, not one of them was a good king in the sight of God.  Of the twenty kings that would eventually rule the southern kingdom of Judah, about half were good, and the other half were evil. I used to joke with my daughter that I would only allow her to date when the boy requesting a date could quote for me the nineteen kings of the northern kingdom in order, and the twenty kings of the southern kingdom in order. You will never understand the Old Testament until you know that the prophetical books of the Old Testament are words of warning to either the northern kingdom or the southern kingdom to repent of their violations of their covenant with God and return to Him.  The books of the Old Testament look like this: 

Historical books (17 - Genesis to Esther)

Poetical books (5 - Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon)

Prophetical books (17 - Isaiah to Malachi)

You will only comprehend the last seventeen books of the Old Testament when you understand that the prophets who wrote the prophetical books were either speaking to Israel, Judah or both kingdoms. 

722 B.C. 

The Fall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel

The northern kingdom of Israel never followed God in covenant relationship. Their nineteen kings were all evil. Stories like that of King Ahab and Jezebel reveal how lost the people of Israel and their leaders were. Prophets like Elijah, Hosea, and others came to northern Israel and spoke to the people and kings on behalf of God. Their message was "repent" or "perish." The people of Israel closed their ears to the warnings of God through the prophets,  God then raised up the Assyrians, the world's first empire, to bring to an end the northern kingdom of Israel. In 722 B.C. Assyria conquered the northern kingdom, took the Israeli men into captivity (Ninevah was Assyria's capital), and brought in pagan men they'd captured in other nations and forced them to intermarry with the Israeli women. The descendants of these "mixed marriages" were the Samaritans, considered "half-breeds" by the Jews of Jesus day. In fact, the Jews (Jew is an abbreviation for Judah, the people of the southern kingdom) would go to great lengths to avoid the Samaritans and the land in which they lived (Samraria). But not Jesus. "He must go through Samaria" (John 4:4) because Jesus is interested in giving life to the least, the lost and the littlest - those the world rejects. It was in the land of Samaria that Jesus met the woman at the well and gave her the water of life. Though the descendants of the mixed marriages were called "Samaritans," after the fall of the northern kingdom, the 10 northern tribes of Israel were forever lost - thus they are called the "Lost Tribes." The Mormons wrongly teach that these lost tribes became the Native Americans. In reality, the tribal identity of northern Israel was lost because they broke covenant with God, and God divorced Himself from them as a nation.

586 B.C.

The Fall of the Southern Kingdom 

After the fall of the northern kingdom, the southern kingdom (Judah), composed of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, would be the only families of Israel remaining. Of course, the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Jesus) was to come from Judah, and the Messiah would "reign over the house of David forever." King David was from the tribe of Benjamin. So the promise God originally made to Abraham that through Him "all the nations of the earth would be blessed" was still in effect. However, the people of Judah began to go the way of their northern brothers. Prophets like Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others began to warn Judah that they too would perish if they didn't repent and return to God. The world's second empire, the Babylonians, conquered the Assyrians, and in a series of three increasingly severe attacks on Jerusalem (609, 597 and 586 B.C.), Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, eventually destroyed the Temple and the city of Jerusalem, and took the Jews (the abbreviation for the people of Judah) into captivity. This captivity into Babylon (modern Iraq and Iran) is called "The Babylonian Exile." I date this 70 years of captivity from 609 B.C. when Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are taken by Nebuchadnezzar from Jerusalem to Babylon, to the fall of Babylon to the Persians in October of 539 B.C. Many amazing things occurred during the Jews captivity in Babylon. Synagogue worship begins. Daniel wrotes his prophetical books and names the date for the coming of the Messiah. The "magi' from the East who came looking for "he who has been born king of the Jews' came because they knew Daniel's scroll. He was the most revered magi of them all, and he was a Jew who never went back to Jerusalem, but stayed in Babylon (and is buried in Iran). 

400 B.C.

The Close of the Old Testament

When the Jews returned from Israel after their Babylonian captivity, they were led by men like Zerubabbel, Ezra and Nehemiah, and they rebuilt the walls and the city of Jerusalem. The Jews rebuilt the Temple itself  and re-dedicated it in 516 B.C. They tried to get back to their normal lives in the land of Israel. Esther, a Jew born in Babylonian captivity, would remain in Babylon and eventually marry a Persian king named Xerxes. Her story is the last historical book of the Old Testament. A ton of people read the Old Testament and get confused because they don't realize if you wish to read the Bible chronologically, you must stop at the 17th book (Esther). The middle five books of poetry in the Old Testament, and the last seventeen books of the Old Testament (the books of the prophets) fit within the first seventeen books of the Old Testament according to the history of Israel. It's interesting to note that though the Jews picked up their worship of God at the re-dedication of the rebuilt Temple in 516 B.C., the Spirit of God was never again present in the Temple worship of the Jews. It is during this time period (from the close of the Old Testament, to the coming of Christ) that there is the rise of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. When there is the worship of God without the Spirit of God, you will either have the rise of legalism (Pharisees) or the rise of liberalism (Sadducees).  From the close of the Old Testament to the birth of Christ, you have a period where the Persians are defeated by the Greeks, the Greeks are then defeated by the Romans, and during the Roman rule of the world, the Messiah appears (see Daniel 11). Daniel prophesied all these events so precisely, skeptics assumed Daniel couldn't have written it (because man can't tell the future). These skeptics were silenced at the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls which contained the complete book of Daniel and showed it was written before the events occurred. Man may not know the future, but God does.

4 B.C.

The Birth of Christ

I won't get into the reasons why the scholars in the middle ages made a four year error when they started B.C. and A.D. dating (Clue: It has to due with leap years), but it will help to you understand the span and scope of the Old Testament if you remember the numbers 4 and 0. 4000 B.C. - The Creation of Adam. Take away a zero. 400 B.C. - The Close of the Old Testament. Take away two zeroes. 4 B.C. - The Coming of Christ. Remember, Jesus Christ came "to fulfill the Law" and make a New Agreement with the world. The Old Covenant was a conditional agreement whereby those who perfectly obeyed God were perfectly blessed by God. In the New Agreement (Covenant), all those who trust Christ -  who came to fulfill the Law - are perfectly blessed by God.  The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is a life that actively fulfilled the Law through His personal obedience, and passively fulfilled the Law through His death in the place of sinners. The coming of God in Christ to this world is the center point of history. History is His story. I find it absolutely without excuse that Christians are very excited and talk to others more about Christ's second coming than we do His first coming. His coming in 4 B.C. changes everything.

A.D. 30 

The Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ

The death of Jesus Christ is God's mercy for sinners. God forsook the Son He loved that He might never forsake those who love His Son. The demons of hell will leave alone anyone who talks generically about God. But when someone begins telling others that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself"the demons go crazy. For those who have a hard time understanding how God can come to earth as a Man, it usually revolves around how the immortal, invisible and immutable Creator could ever be "limited" to a Man.  The answer is beautiful. We worship and serve only one God. But this God who created us so transcends our ability that we could never know Him except for the fact in His love for us God condescends to our level and reveals Himself to us. Christ came that we might know God. He is Emmanuel - God with us. When you come to understand that God conquered sin and death for those who will trust Christ, then the same power that raised Christ from the dead goes to work within you. Jesus came that we might have life, and this life is for those who trust Him. 

A.D. 70 

The Destruction of the Jewish Temple

The time between the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (A.D. 30) to the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans (A.D. 70) is what the Bible calls "the last days." It's the last days of the Old Covenant, not the last days of the world. In fact, during this time of transition (40 years), the good news of what Christ came to do went to "the Jews first, then the Gentile" (Romans 1:16). Daniel prophesied the end of the nation of Israel (Daniel 9:24-27), and just like God gives a period of mercy during transitions in His dealings with His people (40 days of the flood; 40 years in the wilderness; 40 days of temptation, etc...), God gave His people 40 years before He brought the worship of the Jews at the Temple to an end. "The last days" of the Old Covenant are the beginning of a New Agreement between God and the world. 

Trust Christ and live.

Just Be

October 12, 2016, 1:04 pm

≫ Next: My Kingdom In this World but not Of this World - Calm Confidence in the 2016 Presidential Election

≪ Previous: 12 Dates to Know that Make My Bible Reading Flow

$

0

0

When you begin to follow Jesus, one of the things Jesus will do is teach you how to be. Our lives are lived to their fullest potential when we learn just tobe.

Let me explain.

God's personal name is an unpronounceable four-letter Hebrew word  - YHWH  -  and translated in the English Bible as LORD (all caps). The LORD revealed to Moses that His name means "I am that I am" (Exodus 3:14).

God is the the great "I am." He is as He is. God may not be as people perceive Him; but He is who He is. God is in no need of being perceived a certain way; He is as He is. "I Am that I Am." We only know the invisible and immortal Creator God because He's condescended to our level and revealed Himself to us. Jesus is Emmanuel,"God with us." 

One of the things you notice about Jesus is He is who He is. Jesus doesn't change to win people over. Jesus doesn't waver at the opinions of others. Jesus is. People either love Him or hate Him, but He is who He is. He simplyis.

That means, we who follow Him should simply be.

A Christian is. A Jesus' follower is who he is in public; he is who he is in private. We don't change because of perception or even persecution, for we are who we are, and we are learning by the grace of God to simply be.

Those not filled with the love of Christ live in fear.  "I don't want them to believe that I am ...." Those not resting in Christ for their identity (see Ephesians 3:19) live a life revolving around others'  perceptions of them, not the reality of who they are. "I don't want you to think that I am ..."

I used to work with a person who would say, "I just don't want others on staff to think I'm disloyal to them."I reminded this staff member that he is never in control of what others think, nor is God calling him to focus on how others perceive him. I would say to him, "Just be loyal." That's enough. Just be. When you are filled up with all the fullness of God, you live like God lives. He is. Just be.


It takes a lot of work, control and manipulation to affect the perception of others. It's what's called "Public Relations" or PR in our world. Jesus isn't in the PR business. He's in the business of teaching people how to be.
 
Next time you find yourself more concerned with what others think of you, or how others perceive you, or where you fall on the scale of acceptance in the eyes of others, remember that those who know the great I AM live their lives by being. Just be.

---

My Kingdom In this World but not Of this World - Calm Confidence in the 2016 Presidential Election

October 20, 2016, 12:25 pm

≫ Next: Principle, Courage, and Will Equal Real Leadership

≪ Previous: Just Be

$

0

0

"My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36). 

In the current political climate of the United States, it is worth reflecting on the actions and words of the only Leader who really matters. In John 18 we read that Jesus is taken captive by the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans for prosecution. Pilate, the Roman governor, stands before a bound and captive Jesus and asks,"Your own people have handed You over to me. What have you done?" 

Pilate hated Jews, particularly Galilean Jews, the Jews from the region where Jesus lived. Pilate deemed Galilean Jews seditious and rebellious toward Roman rule. Just a few months earlier Pilate killed dozens of them in Jerusalem and "mingled their blood with their sacrifices" (Luke 13:1). 

Pilate feared anyone who sought to subvert his political authority. Could it be that the Jewish religious leaders, desiring to curry Pilate's favor, had brought to Pilate a seditious Galilean who was rumored to be establishing His own kingdom? Could it be that this Jesus, whom the Jews had delivered to Pilate, wanted to rule the Jews in the place of Pilate? Is this why the Jews handed Jesus over to Pilate? The Roman rulers asks our Lord ...

"What have you done, Jesus of Galilee?"

Jesus responds with an answer that so convinces Pilate that Jesus is a harmless Galilean with no political ambitions,  that after hearing Jesus' answer, Pilate washes his hands of the matter and says to the Jews, "I find no basis for a charge (of sedition) against this man?"(Luke 23:4). Look again at what Jesus said to Pilate. Here is Jesus' statement in full. 

 "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this world."(John 18:36)

Pilate was convinced.

Jesus was no political threat. Pilate saw a calm, relaxed Man who did not fight His arrest or the loss of His personal liberties, much less cower in fear at the threat of imprisonment or death at the hands of a Roman imperialist. Pilate knew after hearing Him, that Jesus posed no threat to the political establishment.

It is through what Jesus said to Pilate that we discover what caused Jesus to be so calm during personal persecution. It is through the principle Jesus articulated to Pilate that we can learn how He was so relaxed before a powerful Roman ruler who had already killed hundreds of Galileans.

If you are a Christian - that is, if you follow Christ's example (e.g. "Christian" means "little Christ") - you can learn from Christ's words how to stay calm during a time when the country you love seems to be falling under imperial power.  You can discover in Christ's words the secret to help you stay relaxed even when threatened with the loss of personal liberties. 

"My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). 

What does that mean? 

Contrary to what some think, Jesus did NOT say "My kingdom is not IN this world." He couldn't say that, because His kingdom is in this world. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not OF this world." 

What's the difference?

Have you ever been on a plane when the oxygen masks fall? Probably not. However, if you've paid attention, you know that if the masks ever do fall, you are instructed to put it over your mouth and nose first before you ever help anyone with their mask. 

Suppose you are in a plane when the oxygen masks fall. You immediately put yours on, but everyone else is shocked and surprised by the suddenness of it all, and they aren't as fast as you. In the four or five seconds between the time you get your mask on and everybody else is without it, the air in the plane is filled with a poison that instantly kills everyone else. You alone are the survivor. 

You are IN a plane full of dead people, but you are not OF the dead people in the plane.

That's the difference between IN and OF.

The grace from God that enables us to be part of His Kingdom means that we live in a world full of people dead on the inside, but we ourselves are alive.  

We have faith. We have hope. We have love.

We have these things when everybody else in this world is without faith, without hope, without love.

Our source of life and happiness is not found in who wins the election, or who is able through politics and power to protect our personal liberties. Our source is found in the Father who has given us His Son, and through faith in Him, we find our full and free forgiveness and our personal purpose in this world (I Corinthians 2:2 and II Corinthians 5:20). Our source of life and happiness comes from the Father who rules over all nations and kings, and from Him we find our hope no matter how dark things might seem, for He is always good and is able "to work all things for our good" (Romans 8:28). Our source only increases in its power as we come to know more fully His love for us, for from this deeper understanding of His love, we "are filled with all the fullness of God"and are in need of nothing else (Ephesians 3:14-21).  

We "little Christs" ought to possess the relaxed attitude and calm confidence Christ had before Pilate during our own Presidential election process - regardless of the outcome - because "our kingdom is not of this world."

We are in it, but we are not of it.

Principle, Courage, and Will Equal Real Leadership

October 26, 2016, 8:05 am

≫ Next: Weeping and Singing and Forgetting His Kingdom

≪ Previous: My Kingdom In this World but not Of this World - Calm Confidence in the 2016 Presidential Election

$

0

0

The age of mass communication has led to domination by the masses.

Cool rules.

"Where have all of America's great leaders gone?"

They've been crushed by the masses.

It's not that great leaders themselves are crushed, for real leaders are never dominated by their environment. But the ability to lead is thwarted by the false reality of those needing leadership. What the masses perceive is what the masses receive.

I don't think that England would have survived World War II without Winston Churchill. Churchill, a man of principle, knew Nazi Germany presented an existential threat to western civilization. Churchill fought Germany on the basis of his principles, which fueled his courage, and ultimately forged an "iron will" in him and the nation he led.

When Adolph Hitler turned his sights on England, promising to bomb the English to hell and back, Churchill took to the airwaves on June 4, 1940 and gave his famous speech"We shall fight them on the beaches." He said,

"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender.

And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

I believe that if Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat and other forms of social media existed in Churchill's day, one look by the masses of England at the bombed out buildings and horrific bloodshed of men, women and children in London during the 1940 London Blitz would have been enough to lead the English people to capitulate to Germany. Even with only newspapers and black-and-white photos of the Blitz available to the masses in 1940, the pressure by the English to relent and join European capitulation to Nazi Germany was intense. Had it not been for the great leadership of Winston Churchill, England and America today might be very well teaching their school children the German language.

Great leaders arise in times of crisis. Mass opinion, mass desires, and mass thought are not as important in existential crisis as are principles, courage and iron wills. When a nation is in trouble, great leaders lead because the masses become increasingly irrelevant.

This is why America's Founding Father's feared democracy. The Founding Father's knew that democracy prevents great leaders from taking the stage. The only principle that guides politicians in a nation dominated by the masses is "Do others like me?" The only principle that guides the masses of people in a nation dominated by democratic rule is "What has the government done for me?"

Only world war, world conflict, or unthinkable natural disasters give the needed opportunity for a new set of great leaders  to arise - leaders who live by principle, courage and will. In those nations accustomed to domination by the masses, great leaders sit on the sidelines. 

It seems to me that the path of the United States is spiraling toward worldwide conflict. The only good news from this prediction is that the door may be opening for a restoration of great leadership in America.

Weeping and Singing and Forgetting His Kingdom

November 4, 2016, 10:19 am

≫ Next: The Dangerous Desire to Remove the Electoral College

≪ Previous: Principle, Courage, and Will Equal Real Leadership

$

0

0

Have you ever been in a situation where older people mourn the loss of the way things "used to be"? Are you familiar with the tension between generations over change, when young people rejoice with excitement over the future while at the same time older people mourn with sadness over the past? Sometimes the hardest part of ministry is helping both older and younger generations understand that God is more interested in us building His kingdom than He is with us resting in our comforts.

The people of God living in Judah went through traumatic changes. In 586 B.C. the Temple of God in Jerusalem was literally demolished and burnt to the ground by Nebuchadnezzar (II Kings 24). Built by Solomon four hundred years earlier with no expense spared, and dedicated to God by the Israelites with great pomp and ceremony (II Chronicles 7), the Temple in Jerusalem had been at the center of Jewish identity. When it disappeared, the Jews were taken into captivity by the Babylonians where the Jews "hung their harps in the willow trees" (Psalm 137:2). They'd rather the wind vibrate their stringed instruments because there were no more songs in their hearts.

After seventy years of exile, God raised up the Persian King Cyrus, who conquered Babylon in 539 B.C. and let the Jews return to Jerusalem to rebuild their city and their Temple (Ezra 1). Within two short years, the Jews laid the foundation for the new Temple. In Ezra 3 we read the different responses of the old men and of the young men when they laid the final foundation stone of the new temple:

"Now when the builders had laid the foundation of the temple of the Lord... people sang, praising and giving thanks to the Lord, saying, “For He is good, for His lovingkindness is upon Israel forever.” And the young people shouted with a great shout when they praised the Lord because the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid. Yet many of the priests and Levites and heads of fathers’ households, the old men who had seen the first temple, wept with a loud voice when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, while many others shouted aloud for joy, so that the people could not distinguish the sound of the shout of joy from the sound of the weeping of the people, for the people shouted with a loud shout, and the sound was heard far away."(vs. 10-13).

The old people wept and wailed while the young people celebrated and sang.

Why did the old people weep?  They remembered the first temple, and the second temple wasn't like the first (Ezra 3:12). Here were some of the differences between the two temples:

1. The footprint of the foundation of the second temple was much smaller than the footprint of the first.

2. The appearance of the second temple was much plainer - no silver and gold in it - than the fabulous appearance of the first temple which glittered with gold and silver. 

3. Everything associated with second temple - whether it was the amount of sacrifice, the number of priests, or the people who gathered - when compared to the era of the first temple was much lesser in grander, influence and power. 

Smaller. Plainer. Lesser.

Why did the young people celebrate and sing? They were excited about the future! They had no memory of the past. Most of the young were born in a culture that was pagan (Babylon), and just the ability to dance and sing to God in freedom was enough to bring tears to their eyes.

However, the old people who were at first sad, soon got mad. They stopped working on the temple of God. "If we can't do it the way we remember it, then we aren't participating at all."

When the young people saw their elders lose interest in the work of God, they turned to the Samaritans for help. The Samaritans were "enemies of God" (Ezra 4:1-2). As one might expect, the Samaritans provided no help in building the temple. Instead, they sought to destroy Judah from within. When the young people of Judah finally saw the Samaritan threat for what it was, they spent so much time fighting the Samaritans, they left the temple of God unfinished.

For 18 years, the old people of Judah and the young people of Judah took the wood they were going to use as framework for the temple of God, and instead they paneled the walls of their own houses (Haggai 1:4). The people of God would rather sit in comfort and security in their own houses than work together for the Kingdom.  The temple was left unfinished.

Enter the prophet Haggai.

In August of 520 B.C. Haggai, inspired by God, told the people to "give careful thought to what they were doing" (Haggai 1:5). In an attempt to only do those things comfortable and secure for themselves (e.g. "living in paneled houses," and "seeking their own comfort"), they have neglected the Kingdom.

Haggai's prophetic word "stirred up the spirits" of the old and the young, the governor of Judah (Zerubbabel), and the high priest (Haggai 1:14). They began to work together for the Lord.

But even after they began to build the framework of the temple on the foundation they had established 18 years earlier, the older people still complained  (Haggai 2).

1. "Lord, we have no gold and silver like when we built You the first Temple!"
2. "Lord, this temple is really, really different than the first one we built You!"
3. "Lord, we don't like what we are seeing; it's not the way it used to be!"

God interrupted their complaining by giving to Haggai three additional prophecies (see Haggai 2). The Lord gives the people a promise:

"On that day" (Haggai 2:23), - a day which refers to the coming of Messiah, the son of Zerubbabel (see Matthew 1:12) -  "The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house. 'And in this place I will grant peace,'declares the Lord Almighty” (Haggai 2:9)

Haggai 2 is probably my favorite chapter in the entire Old Testament. In Haggai's encouragement to the people to build the second temple in Jerusalem, he tells them that the Messiah will do something far greater, far grander, far more glorious than anything seen in the days of the first temple.

God will bring peace to sinners through Zerubbabel's descendant, the Messiah, who will create a temple far more glorious than Solomon's.

For we know that "we ourselves are God's temple, and the Spirit of God dwells in us" (I Corinthians 3:16).

APPLICATION:

If you are weeping over the loss of buildings, programs, and traditions of the past, and because of this sadness you sit in your home and seek personal comforts, then you are guilty of the sin of the old people of Judah. Leave your paneled walls and seek His Kingdom. You seem to have lost your perspective. It is far more glorious when a sinner finds peace with God through Good News of Jesus Christ than remembering the glorious days of Levitical singers performing on the gold encrusted steps of the former temple.

Likewise, if you are celebrating and singing because you are unaware of the traditions of the past, and you're are simply rejoicing over freedom to build His Kingdom, be aware that the Samaritans lay in wait to trap you into believing that they can offer you help by blending what the world cherishes with God's Kingdom. Come out, you young people of God, and be separate from the Samaritans who worship many gods.

Let's build the Kingdom together.

The Dangerous Desire to Remove the Electoral College

November 11, 2016, 9:15 am

≫ Next: Miley Cyrus, Cyrus the Great and Natural Law

≪ Previous: Weeping and Singing and Forgetting His Kingdom

$

0

0

After Hillary Clinton won America's popular vote, but Donald Trump won more state electoral votes and is now the President-elect, many millennials on social media are asking to get rid of the Electoral College.

This is dangerous. Our Founding Fathers feared a pure democracy, and for this reason they created a Constitution that established a democratic Republic, which includes a system whereby representatives (electors) would be the only people who would actually "vote" for the next President of the United States. Donald Trump won more "electoral votes" than Hillary Clinton. These electors will gather in Washington, D.C. on Monday, December 19, 2016 and make official Donald Trump's election to the office of President of the United States.

Why did the Founding Fathers establish the Electoral College? For a very important reason:

Our Founding Father's understood the rule of the mob is deleterious while the rule of the law is meritorious. 

That's right. The Founding Fathers feared a pure democracy.  

When the invalid eighty-one-year-old Benjamin Franklin was carried out of Philadelphia's City Hall at the conclusion of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, it is said that a woman stopped the caravan carrying the most famous American of the 1700's and asked "Mr. Franklin, do we have a monarchy or a republic?" The response came:

"A Republic, Madame, if you can keep it."

I'll never forget my fourth grade teacher asking us if the United States was a democracy or a republic. Most of us didn't know what either term meant, but the majority of us answered "A democracy."

Our teacher then asked us to stand and face the American flag, place our hands over our hearts, and cite the Pledge of Allegiance.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands..."

Our teacher stopped us..., "Listen to what you just said - 'and to the Republic.' Boys and girls, never forget the United States of America is a Republic, not a democracy."

After we sat down, a boy raised his hand and asked the question, "How is a Republic different from a democracy?"

Our teacher rightly responded - "A Republic is a rule of law, governed by representative leadership. The ancient Roman Republic was the model our American forefathers used in establishing America's republic form of government. Democracy was feared by our forefathers, not favored."

That little exchange when I was ten years old began a lifelong love for governance based on Natural Law. I began to learn what our forefathers believed. For example, during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph described the multiple discussions the Constitutional Convention delegates had during the four months of debate regarding "evil" in governments and political systems. He reflected...

 "...that in tracing these evils to their origin, every man (at the Constitutional Convention) had found the origin of evil in the turbulence and follies of democracy."

It was unanimous at the Constitutional Convention that pure democracy was evil.

In our age when everyone thinks that the most Twitter followers, the most Facebook "Likes," and the most popularity is always the best, it's difficult to fathom why the rule of law (e.g.  Natural Law) is always better than a governance by opinions of the most people. The Founding Fathers understood that any government of pure democracy will eventually collapse.

John Adams said,

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

John Marshall, who later became Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court observed,

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

If America keeps the rule of law established by the Founding Fathers, then the Electoral College will remain. If the Constitution is abandoned and we move toward a pure democratic (popular) vote, then the United States will become a government ruled by the majority wishes of people (i.e. "a pure democracy").

The Electoral College means that each state elects representatives (electors) who will go to Washington, D.C. and cast their vote for the next President of the United States. 538 electors are sent by the people of the United States to cast their votes for the President.

An elector can become a "faithless" elector and not vote on Monday, December 19, 2016 as obligated by his or her state. But that is a very rare thing indeed (with penalties). If there is a tie when the electors cast their votes (269 vs. 269), then the United States House of Representatives will cast the tie breaking vote. This is why when a Presidential candidate receives 270 electoral votes - even if he or she doesn't win the popular vote - that candidate will become the next President of the United States.

The Founding Father's could have said from the beginning, "The candidate that receives the most number of popular votes will be elected President." But they didn't. Why did the Founding Father's not want the popular vote to elect our President?

I realize it is difficult for people in America today to understand why America needs to preserve our democratic Republic. Instead of quoting the Founding Fathers, I'll give you a simple explanation as to why the Electoral College is needed.

If America were a pure democracy, the Presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in the major metropolitan areas of the coasts will always win the election. The Electoral College gives representation to people who live in the heartland of America. The farmers, ranchers, small businessmen, and others who live in rural America - the people who feed our country and fuel our country - are guaranteed a voice through their electors. The fact that the smaller states in population have greater proportional electoral representation to more populated coastal states insures that the people who live in 95% of the land mass of America are not swallowed up by the masses who live in 5% of the country. In other words, the Electoral College - established by the Constitution - means our country is a democratic Republic, and keeps a pure democracy at bay.

The reason Benjamin Franklin responded, "A Republic, Madame, if you can keep it" is because he--along with the other Founding Fathers--believed that a republic could eventually descend into a democracy, a democracy would always eventually dissolve into anarchy, and anarchy would ultimately lead to totalitarianism.

Again, the Founding Fathers believed through their study of governments throughout world history that a pure democracy will soon descend into anarchy, and that anarchy will soon devolve into totalitarianism, For this reason, it is best, at least according to our Founding Fathers, to avoid pure democracy and "keep" a democratic Republic - if we can.

Miley Cyrus, Cyrus the Great and Natural Law

November 16, 2016, 8:12 am

≫ Next: The Chisholm Trail Should Be Called Black Beaver's Trail: The Amazing True Story of an American Hero

≪ Previous: The Dangerous Desire to Remove the Electoral College

$

0

0

Miley Cyrus gave an interview in 2015 to Paper magazine where she revealed disdain for people who view life differently than she.  Though raised in a Southern Baptist home and baptized in a Southern Baptist church, Miley Cyrus now rejects her parents' beliefs.

According to the magazine, Miley calls herself "the least judgmental person ever.” However, she maintains a "particular contempt"for Christians.  Those people," meaning those she feels are more judgmental than she, "shouldn’t get to make our laws."

The 22-year-old singer went on to slam anyone who believes that Noah and the flood is a true story. “That’s f***ing insane,” she told the magazine. “We’ve outgrown that fairy tale, like we’ve outgrown f***ing Santa and the tooth fairy.” The former Disney Channel star also criticized her parent’s political views, calling them “conservative-ass mother-f***ers.” Cyrus revealed that she views her gender identity as“fluid,” and told her mother that she was attracted to women when she was just 14 years old.

In the course of the interview, one sentence from Miss Cyrus struck me:

"Those people shouldn't get to make our laws."

Miss Cyrus, it seems, has at least a limited understanding of government.  She refers to laws. She understands people "make laws." She may even know the formal definition of law.

"The system of rules that a particular country or community recognize as regulating the action of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties."

In an Islamic country ruled by Sharia Law, Miss Cyrus would be whipped, stoned or beheaded for her violations of Sharia Law, In reading through Sharia Law myself, I'm confident Miss Cyrus is guilty of capital offenses.

In a monarchy (e.g. "a country ruled by a king or queen"), the laws change according to the character of the monarch. For example, one of the greatest kings of all time, a Persian monarch named Cyrus the Great (600 - 529 B.C.), a man referenced by the prophets of the Bible as "God's anointed one" (Isaiah 45:1), allowed the captive Jews to return to Jerusalem and worship and live as they please under Persian rule. The Babylonian king that Cyrus conquered in 539 B.C. was a wicked king named Belshazzar. The laws of Cyrus were good. The laws of Belshazzar were bad. In a land ruled by kings, the character of the laws reflect the character of the king.

In a land of anarchy, there is no law. The very word anarchy means lawlessness. Though Miss Cyrus seems to think that the people who "make laws" should be her kind of people - people who are non-judgmental - it seems to me she hasn't reflected well on the end result of anarchy. It seems she's advocated a country of "no laws" and no "penalties" for personal behavior.

But should someone be allowed to steal Miss Cyrus recordings without paying royalties? Should someone be allowed to enter Miss Cyrus' home and kidnap and torture her? Should someone be allowed to cut off her head because she is refusing to pray to Allah?

Of course not.

So what kind of laws do we need in the United States to protect people like Miss Cyrus and others?

Answer: Natural Law. Natural Law is the foundation of the United States Constitution and the basis for all laws of the United States. Natural Law as a term of politics and jurisprudence may be defined as:

A knit body of rules of action prescribed by an authority superior to the state. These are rules from Nature and Nature's God that govern the operation of the universe, including everything and everyone.

Natural Law is not exclusively Christian or Jewish or any other religion. C.S. Lewis in his classic work The Abolition of Man traces Natural Law throughout history, in all civilized nations. For a great read, go to the Appendix in The Abolition of Man called Illustrations of the Tao and read Lewis' description of the eight points of Natural Law.  They are as follows:

1. The Law of General Beneficence (eg. kindness)
2. The Law of Special Beneficence (eg. kindness)
3. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors
4. Duties to Children and Posterity
5. The Law of Justice
6. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity
7. The Law of Mercy
8. The Law of Magnanimity

If you wish to learn a shorter description of Natural Law, memorize these seventeen word from Richard Maybury:

 "Do all you have agreed to do and do not encroach on other persons or their property."

Killing another person is encroaching. Stealing from another person is encroaching. Forcing another person to worship the Creator in a prescribed way is encroaching. Laws that violate Natural Law are not Divine.

Cyrus the Great was not a Jew, and obviously not a Christian. He was a Persian magistrate. Yet, the Creator called him, "My anointed one" (Isaiah 45:1). Anyone who lives by Natural Law and leads others to live by it is "anointed." Miss Cyrus, any country in which we live must have laws, or we will descend into anarchy. Natural Law is good for government. Without it

"They shall take who have the power, And they shall keep who can."

Russell Kirk writes that Natural Law only works in a country where individuals - regardless of their religion, race or creed -  are individually governed by it. He writes:

Permit me, ladies and gentlemen, to repeat here that the natural law is more than a guide for statesmen and jurists. It is meant primarily for the governance of persons -- for you and me, that we may restrain will and appetite in our ordinary walks of life. Natural law is not a harsh code that we thrust upon other people: rather, it is an ethical knowledge, innate perhaps, but made more clearly known to us through the operation of right reason. And the more imagination with which a person is endowed, the more will he apprehend the essence of the natural law, and understand its necessity. If such a one, despite his power of imagination, offends against the natural law, the greater must be his suffering. So I have discovered in the course of a peregrine life. And over a good many decades I have found that most contemners of the natural law are dull dogs, afflicted by a paucity of imagination. As Adam Mickiewicz instructs us:

"Your soul deserves the place to which it came, If having entered Hell, you feel no flame."

Miss Cyrus, your interview with Paper magazine violates Natural Law. This has nothing to do with Christianity or religion, and everything to do with right reason, imagination, and honor.

Raymond English has written:

Natural law cannot be understood except through the elements of poetry and imagination in the soul. The poetic and the moral imagination are parts of human reason. For the man who does not feel himself in some sense a child of God, who is not possessed by the "desire and pursuit of the whole," and for whom words like honor are meaningless, the notion of natural law must be a Mumbojumbo, a bogle to make children behave tolerably well, a fantasy from the adolescence or the childhood of the race. Poets, James Elroy Flecker says, are those who swear that Beauty lives although lilies die; and the natural law is the poetry of political science, the assurance that Justice lives though states are imperfect and ephemeral. Justice is to politics what beauty is to art; indeed, beauty and justice become almost identical at the highest levels of human aspiration.

It seems a generation of Americans, epitomized by Miss Cyrus, have lost what it means to be individuals of dignity, honor and magnanimity.

We need less the spirit of Miley Cyrus and more the spirit of Cyrus the Great.

The Chisholm Trail Should Be Called Black Beaver's Trail: The Amazing True Story of an American Hero

November 19, 2016, 12:22 pm

≫ Next: Grateful

≪ Previous: Miley Cyrus, Cyrus the Great and Natural Law

$

0

0

Something caught my attention in today's Enid News and Eagle newspaper (Nov. 19, 2016). A news photographer took a photo of a mural that is being painted on the side of Garfield Furniture "to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Chisholm Trail in 2017." 

I saw two mistakes immediately. The Oklahoma portion of the famous trail known as "The Chisholm Trail," was actually blazed in May 1861, not 1867, Further, it was the famous Delaware Indian Chief and U.S. army scout named Black Beaver who blazed the trail, not Jesse Chisholm. Black Beaver, Jesse Chisholm's good friend, led 750 Union soldiers and some civilians (including Jesse Chisholm) on a dangerous route north out of Indian Territory at the beginning of the Civil War. Four years later, Jesse Chisholm followed Black Beaver 's Trail south as he left Wichita to return to Council Grove (Oklahoma City) to open again his trading business with the Indians. The story of how Black Beaver came to blaze this trail in May 1861 is the culmination of The Civil War's First Secret Mission.

After the Confederate bombing of Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, which officially began the Civil War (1861-1865), President Abraham Lincoln and United States General-in-Chief Winfield "Old Fuss and Feather's" Scott, sent U.S. Cavalry Lieutenant William Averell to Indian Territory (Oklahoma) with orders to evacuate the 750 Union officers and troops stationed in Indian Territory. The soldiers were to evacuate to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and then move to Washington Capital. Lincoln needed these troops - the finest in the United States military - to protect the vulnerable nation's capital from what the President called "the insurrection."

Dressed as a Confederate, Lieutenant Averell made his way from the nation's capital to Arkansas, and then entered Indian Territory (Oklahoma) through Fort Smith. The Union fort called Fort Smith had been captured just hours earlier by the Confederates. Observed by a Confederate commander who thought he was up to no good, Averell was chased by Confederate cavalry through Oklahoma Territory in one of the greatest horse rides in American history. Averell eventually made it to Fort Arbuckle, the Union's headquarters in Oklahoma Territory, where he presented to Colonel William H. Emory the order from Lincoln and Scott to evacuate.

The Cherokee Outlet (Yellow)

The problem the Union troops faced in fulfilling this order was the route out. The Union soldiers had come into Indian Territory through Fort Smith - now controlled by the Confederates - and the Union commanders had no experience traversing the Cherokee Outlet to the north. This land was Indian land, given by the government to the Indians as "an outlet to the hunting grounds of the west."However the soldiers stationed at Fort Arbuckle did know a man who was acquainted with the Cherokee Outlet - it was Black Beaver. He had worked as a scout for the United States Army during the Mexican War (1846-1848), and he had also been the personal guide for John James Audubon (1785-1851) during exploratory expeditions of Colorado. Black Beaver had crossed the Rockies and made his way to the Pacific many times, and he was very familiar with Indian Territory, including the Cherokee Outlet. Black Beaver was considered to be the best guide on the western frontier. He was now retired and living about 30 miles from Fort Arbuckle on his farm near present day Anadarko, Oklahoma.

Black Beaver

On May 3, 1861, just hours after Averell had reached Fort Arbuckle, a Union cavalry party was sent to entice Black Beaver to guide the Union troops north through the Cherokee Outlet. Black Beaver was disinclined to help. He was 55 years old - an age considered elderly in his day - and he didn't want to leave his family alone on the farm. The Union troops appealed to his patriotism, and added to their enticement by promising the United States government would pay him for his services. Finally, Black Beaver agreed.

On May 4, 1861 the flag was lowered at Fort Arbuckle. For the next 27 days, Black Beaver guided a mile-and-a-half long train of troops, supplies, dependents and livestock on their way to U.S. Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. Black Beaver knew exactly where to stop along the route north, allowing for the people and horses to drink deeply from the natural springs that dotted the landscape. Black Beaver also knew where to ford major east/west rivers in Oklahoma (Washita, North Canadian, Salt Fork, and the Arkansas). The Union troops made it safely to Fort Leavenworth on Friday, May 31, 1861. Of the 750 troops that Black Beaver led to Fort Leavenworth, at least seven went on to become Union Generals during the Civil War, leading the United States to ultimate victory against the Confederate States of America. In addition, two of the men would be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for heroism and valor.

Black Beaver would not return to Indian Territory (Oklahoma) until after the Civil War. He couldn't. The Confederates placed a bounty on his head - dead or alive. In addition, news reached Black Beaver while in Kansas that the Confederates who had come north from Texas into Indian Territory and had destroyed his crops, burned down his house, and taken his family as prisoners. Black Beaver stayed in Wichita for the remainder of the Civil War with his good friend Jesse Chisholm. Black Beaver and Chisholm had been friends for more than thirty years/ Both of them had been part of the historic Leavenworth-Dodge Expedition of 1834, the first meeting between whites and the southern Plains Indian tribes, which occurred at the present site of United States Army Military Post Fort Sill. 

Jesse Chisholm

Jesse Chisholm (1805-1868) was a remarkable cowboy, Indian trader, hunter, guide and scout in his own right.  Chisholm's father, a Scotsman, married Chisholm's mother, a Cherokee in Tennessee. Chisholm came with his mother to future Oklahoma in the early 1820's from their home in Polk County, Tennessee. Fluent in 14 different Indian dialects, Chisholm made his money trading product with Indians in Indian Territory. However, during the Civil War, he stayed in Wichita (Kansas) with his good friend Black Beaver. After the war was over, Chisholm asked Black Beaver the best route to go back to Chisholm's trading post on the North Canadian River (future Oklahoma City). Black Beaver responded, "Follow the trail I blazed with the Union troops four years ago." Chisholm followed that trail. It was Black Beaver who had pointed out the water holes in 1861. It was Black Beaver who had marked the river crossings to avoid the quicksand. Chisholm followed this trail. When cattle drovers from Texas followed the same trail beginning in 1867, they called it Longhorn I-One, a name initially applied to the entire trail, from deep in the heart of Texas to the Kansas rail heads. After Jesse died in March 4, 1868, near Geary, Oklahoma the Longhorn I-One trail was renamed the Chisholm Trail in his honor.  Without detracting from the remarkableness of Jesse Chisholm, the trail should have been named Black Beaver's Trail from the very beginning.

Wade with Black Beaver's family

Black Beaver moved back to Indian Territory (Oklahoma) after the Civil War and rebuilt his house, replanted his crops, and re-united with his family after a long absence. Black Beaver was not fully reimbursed by the government for his services in guiding the Union army out of Indian Territory. His financial loss was $20,000 - a vast sum in his day. The U.S. government, after forceful urging by Colonel Emory, gave Black Beaver $5,000 for his services.  In Black Beaver's later years he converted to faith Christ and became a Baptist preacher among the Indians. A direct descendant of Tamanend, Black Beaver was the keeper of the original Great Treaty which William Penn had signed and given to Tamanend (or Tammany), the Chief of the Delawares in 1682, the first treaty between white man and Indians. Before Black Beaver's death, a newspaper reporter asked him if he had any regrets guiding the Union Troops north out of Indian Territory in 1861. Black Beaver paused, then said"The only regret I have is that when the Confederates burned my home, the Great Treaty which I kept above my mantle was destroyed."Black Beaver died May 8, 1880 at his home on the outskirts of present day Anadarko, Oklahoma

On August 10, 1975, the United States military exhumed the body of Black Beaver and with full military honors, reburied Black Beaver on the grounds of U.S. Army Military Post Fort Sill, Oklahoma. As Black Beaver's coffin was lowered into the ground, a 21-gun salute fired. Then, Lieutenant General David Ott, base commander, gave a moving tribute to Black Beaver's legacy, closing with these words:

"It is with a great deal of pride that Sill accepts Chief Black Beaver."

Unfortunately, the name Black Beaver is mostly unknown to Americans. Were the Chisholm Trail properly named, Black Beaver's contributions to our nation's heritage would be front and center.

Grateful

November 23, 2016, 6:04 am

≫ Next: Castro, the CIA, and Christ's Second Coming

≪ Previous: The Chisholm Trail Should Be Called Black Beaver's Trail: The Amazing True Story of an American Hero

$

0

0

Jim has given me permission to share his story.

He's a big reason why I'm grateful this Thanksgiving 2016. Jim illustrates why a Kingdom focus is so important for churches like the one I pastor. The Lord calls us to be transformational, not comfortable. Salt and light, that's who we are. Yet, too often, we preachers are more interested in pleasing people and making budgets than we are in pleasing God and making disciples.

Jim reminds me of the power of God's grace and the transformation through Jesus centered ministry.

7 years ago Jim came to see me. He told me he didn't wish to live. Every day Jim would get up and tell his wife, "Today's the day I'm going to kill myself."  His threats were real. He had attempted suicide seven times. When you hear his story, you'll understand why. He came to see me at the request of his wife.

Jim was beaten by his mother beginning at the age of 3. Not spanked; beaten. The physical abuse intensified over the years. At age 12, after his mother caught him at an R-rated movie, Jim was told to remove his pants and underwear and bend over the kitchen counter. His mother removed Jim's metal three-pronged belt from his pants, and she proceeded to beat him with the metal end on his bare buttocks.

She told Jim she would keep beating him until he cried. "I'd been beaten so much by her I was determined to die before I cried," Jim told me. The beating didn't stop until Jim's older sister finally intervened and grabbed the belt out their mother's hands. Enraged that her pre-puberty son had not yet cried, Jim's mother yelled, "You two clean up this mess." It took more than an hour to clean Jim's spattered blood spots from the floors, countertops, and ceilings.

The physical abuse was nothing compared to the sexual abuse. From age 8 to age 11, an older male cousin repeatedly sexually violated Jim. Unless you've experienced sexual abuse, it's difficult to imagine the soul-crushing agony. At the age of 12, Jim's mother began sexually abusing her son too. It would be inappropriate for me to detail how his mom sexually abused him, but Jim's psychosis began around the time he grappled with why his drug-addicted mother crossed over from inflicting physical pain to demanding sexual pleasure.

At the age of 13, Jim began to get in trouble with the law. The police arrested him for setting fires and other acts of vandalism. "I was arrested too many times to count," Jim said.  The fights were frequent and fierce. "I once put a boy in the ICU for bashing his head with a brick on our way home from school." Jim's anger was uncontrollable. On those occasions he managed to suppress it and not express it, Jim plunged into deep depression. He turned to drugs and alcohol for relief but found none.

That's when he began to have actual mental breakdowns. "I've been institutionalized nine times. I've been diagnosed as bi-polar. All I know it's been difficult to even want to live." His suicide attempts were frequent and often the cause of his institutionalization.

Seven years ago, when I first heard Jim's story, my heart went out to him. Jim could barely look me in the eye. His voice was so quiet I strained to hear him. I knew he was a wreck inside. I encouraged Jim as best I could. I recommended that Jim begin attending a new recovery program that Emmanuel Enid was beginning.

Fast forward to this evening, Thanksgiving week 2016.

I went with Jim to a local mental health facility that Jim visits each week.

He is no longer a patient. Jim goes every week to minister to patients. Jim is now Emmanuel Enid's recovery minister.

I listened as Jim shared his story of abuse, addiction, psychosis  and recovery through Jesus Christ to the patients in the mental health facility. I watched the mental health patients listen intently as Jim shared his story. I mean, they really listened.

Jim captivated them with the message of God's grace in Jesus Christ. One man wore a shirt that said, "Nothing to fear, but the loss of beer." But in listening to these men open up to Jim after, I realized that they all feared so much more. Many of them had been sexually abused like Jim. All of them faced addictions like Jim. These men connected with Jim because he was one of them; the walking wounded.

I too listened intently as Jim explained to the men how he began attending Emmanuel Enid's recovery program seven years ago at my request. Four weeks into the step recovery program participants are asked to pick an accountability partner. The recovery leader at the time asked everyone to stand and look around and find someone to be their accountability partner.

"I ran to the bathroom and hid," said Jim. "I did what I always did. I withdrew. In that bathroom, I committed to taking my life that night. I determined to kill myself, and this time to make it a successful suicide. I washed my face and walked out of the bathroom. That's when two men in Emmanuel's recovery program were standing there in the hall waiting for me. 'Jim,' they said, 'We want you to be our accountability partner. We love you.'"

Jim cried all the way home. "If these men actually loved me, maybe God could love me too." That night, Jim gave his life to Christ. Jim surrendered to Christ everything; his life; his hurts, his hang-ups, and his habits. Jim's recovery was beginning.

The last seven years have been transformational for Jim. "Jesus Christ has worked miracle after miracle within me."

I saw the transformation in Jim tonight. As Jim spoke, he looked men in the eyes. As he shared, the hesitant, embarrassed man full of shame that I met seven years ago was gone. The Spirit of God was now in control of Jim.

It was my privilege to pray with the men tonight as we finished our time together. I couldn't help but get emotional as I prayed for Christ's power and love to transform these men's lives, just as He had transformed Jim's life. The men all hugged Jim and me before we left.

As we were leaving the hospital I said, "Jim, it's absolutely amazing to see the impact you had on these men tonight. You are so totally transformed from the man I first talked to seven years ago."

Jim smiled and said, "We serve a very big God, don't we?"

As an adult, Jim didn't avoid the mom who'd inflicted so much pain. Christ gave him the power to love her, in spite of her sins. Jim's now aged mother recently sought forgiveness of Jim. The power of God's grace in Jim has been seen in his ability to forgive.

When you and I walk the halls of the church building on Sundays, there are many people just like Jim who are walking those same halls. They are unimpressed with outward appearances because everything inside them is falling apart.

I'm grateful to pastor a church who thinks about everything we do, with the primary focusing on being transformational rather than comfortable.

I'm grateful for friends like Jim who continually remind me that the grace of God makes us all "more than conquerors through Him who loved us."

I'm grateful that after 35 years of vocational ministry, I'm finally learning that the measurement of a great ministry is the people whose lives have been transformed by Jesus Christ.

I'm just simply grateful today.

Happy Thanksgiving!

---

Castro, the CIA, and Christ's Second Coming

November 29, 2016, 2:51 pm

≫ Next: Christmas, the Trinity, Husbands and Wives

≪ Previous: Grateful

$

0

0

There are true stories so bizarre they read like fiction.

This is one of them.

Fidel Castro died this past week (November 25, 2016). This brutal communist dictator had been an enemy of the United States government since he seized power in Cuba in 1959. President Kennedy attempted to overthrow Castro by promising military support for Cuban exiles who would launch a coup against Castro. In the greatest failure of Kennedy's administration, the Cuban exiles invaded Cuba on April 27, 1961, but were left to die at the Bay of Pigs without the promised U.S. support ever materializing.

On November 30, 1961 a second attempt to overthrow the Cuban dictator commenced. It was called Operation Mongoose, and was led by U.S. Air Force General Edward Lansdale of the United States Department of Defense (DOD). Lansdale worked closely with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to implement the 33 individual phases of Operation Mongoose. The end goal was the overthrow of Castro.

Here's where it gets weird.

General Lansdale and his agents designed a plan to try and convince the people of Cuba that:

1. The Second Coming of Jesus Christ had arrived.
2. Fidel Castro was the anti-Christ.
3. Jesus wanted the people of Cuba to overthrow the anti-Christ.
   

How the DOD and CIA proposed to execute a fake Second Coming of Jesus Christ to overthrow Castro is revealed by Assistant Deputy Director for National Intelligence Programs Thomas A. Parrott in his 1974 report to the United States Senate.

"Lansdale's plan consisted of spreading the word that the Second Coming of Christ was imminent and that Christ was against Castro who was anti-Christ. And you would spread this word around Cuba, and then on whatever date it was, that there would be a manifestation of this thing. And at the time – this was absolutely true – and at the time just over the horizon there would be an American submarine that would surface off of Cuba and send up some star-shells. And this would be the manifestation of the Second Coming and Castro would be overthrown.”

Star-shells are powerful pyrotechnic flares designed to fill the skies at night with widespread illumination. Parrott reported to the Senate that Lansdale intended for a U.S. Navy submarine to project images of Jesus Christ onto low lying clouds off the coast of the Cuban capital of Havana. While the image of Christ appeared over Havana, a crew from a U.S. military plane - camouflaged by the clouds and using new technology that muffled the plane engines - would broadcast  messages from Jesus Christ over a loudspeaker to the people of Cuba (in Spanish of course), ordering them by the authority of God Himself to overthrow Castro the anti-Christ and renounce communism.

The operation was never executed out of fear that either the submarine or the airplane might actually be discovered by the Cuban military and the potential loss of American life was too great a risk.

Castro's death and the 45th anniversary of Operation Mongoose this week have led me to some reflection. I realize that today's America is mostly pagan and we are ruled by many pagan political leaders. 45 years ago we had many professing Christians in government leadership, including General Lansdale. Which America is more conducive to the growth of true Christianity?

1. An America where the government and political leaders are hostile to the message of Jesus Christ and to those people who follow Jesus? or
2. An America where the government and political leaders concoct a covert plan to fake the Second Coming of Jesus Christ in order to overthrow a communist dictator.

I think the former.

Christmas, the Trinity, Husbands and Wives

December 9, 2016, 6:57 am

≫ Next: Giving Others Endless Mercy and Unrelenting Love

≪ Previous: Castro, the CIA, and Christ's Second Coming

$

0

0

I have written before on the doctrinal error of the eternal subordination of the Son, but my father (Paul Burleson) has recently written an excellent post that shows how one's view of the Trinity affects your understanding of both Christmas and marriage! Read ... and enjoy!

Christmas, the Trinity, Husbands and Wives

Paul Burleson

Christmas is coming. It's a celebration of Jesus coming to do a redemptive work. It's a mystery, but some things can be ruled in OR out of that mystery.

Some Christians have mistakenly applied a subordinate relationship to the persons of the Trinity in their eternal nature. I.e., even before the Logos became incarnate as Jesus born in Bethlehem, He was subordinate [they say] to God the Father, though the Persons of the Godhead were equal in essence or nature. Thus, [they say] a relationship of authority and submission, a kind of chain of command if you will, is present within the Trinity by nature. If the Son IS eternally begotten by the Father, then, they would say, His very existence in some way depends on the Father, thus the submission.

So the concept of eternal subordination would seem to be a natural corollary with this kind of thinking. And, for them, this leads to an interpretation of marriage that would make the husband LIKE the Father, ruling, and wives LIKE the Son, in submission, because [they say] the Son's submission is an ETERNAL thing. [But they're also forgetting that marriage has no eternality about it as there is no marriage in heaven.]

In my judgment this is NOT a correct understanding of the Incarnation. The many passages that could be cited that certainly do show the subordination of Christ to the Father are to be understood as a reference to the role of SERVANT which the Logos VOLUNTARILY assumed as a result of the incarnation. [Which, by the way, is to be the role of BOTH husband and wife to each other, SERVING one another. See Ephesians 5:21 resulting from the imperative in 5:18] There is no relationship of subordination among the three Persons of the Trinity before the Incarnation to be found in the scripture. It has to be ASSUMED because of our human view of Parent/Child relationships transferred on to an eternal level.

Assumptions cannot be allowed that would present a Son or Spirit with anything LESS [even authority] than the Father. Thus, the subordination of the Son to the Father is to be seen as FUNCTIONAL ONLY and ONLY for His earthly sojourn and not ONTOLOGICAL at all. [Within the nature of the Trinity] It has to do with the Son’s office and work on EARTH and not his PERSON in pre-time or post-time. [Eternity]

What we have in scripture is an Eternal-Sonship that is totally UNLIKE any sonship we have on planet earth. So whatever "submission" Jesus experienced on this earth to the Father was assumed and limited to His earthly sojourn. Jesus Christ the God-man, as the Son of Man, is the Father’s servant, and he does the will of the Father; but this is an aspect of the humiliation that he freely chose to endure for the sake of our salvation. It is NOT a testimony to His Eternal Nature OR FUNCTION as there is Eternal Equality in the Three Persons of the Godhead.

Giving Others Endless Mercy and Unrelenting Love

December 10, 2016, 10:16 am

≫ Next: The God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel - Jacob

≪ Previous: Christmas, the Trinity, Husbands and Wives

$

0

0

We sing a song in REFUGE written by our friend Lauren Daigle. It's entitled Dry Bones, and it's much easier to vocalize with our singing mouths than it is to actualize in our sinful lives.

God of endless mercy,

God of unrelenting love.
Rescue every daughter,

Bring us back the wayward sons.

God of endless mercy."The Lord does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities" (Psalm 103:10), and therefore, "We approach the throne of grace with fullest confidence, that we will receive mercy for our failures and grace to help in the hour of our need" (Hebrews 4:16).

God of unrelenting love. Unrelenting is defined as "never softening, or never letting up in vigor." The Scripture tells us God demonstrates His unrelenting love for us "In that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8). We who are wayward sons and reckless daughters (Dry Bones) are made alive "...because of His great unrelenting love for us and His rich mercy" (Ephesians 2:4-5).

We will often hear the word "godly" at church. "He's such a godly man," or "She's such a godly woman," or "They live such godly lives." We use the word, but I'm not sure we understand it. A godly person is one whose life mirrors God's endless mercy and unrelenting love. That's godliness. The Apostle Paul begs us in Ephesians 4:1 "to live a life consistent with our calling." Paul has spent the first three chapters of Ephesians describing God's endless mercy and unrelenting love toward us while we were yet still sinners.  Paul then begs us to live our lives consistent with (Greek: axios) our calling.

A few years ago a young man in our church left his wife. For a few weeks he pointed his finger at his wife as the cause for the break-up of their marriage, but he hid the fact that he had a secret girlfriend. When he finally revealed to me that there was another woman in his life, we asked him to step down from his leadership position at Emmanuel. He totally stopped coming. His shame was intense.

In a few months his divorce was finalized. This young man moved in with his girlfriend. His weight ballooned. He was in hiding from his former friends and from his former life. By his own admission, he was severely depressed. He eventually married his girlfriend, and he became the topic of conversation around many dinner tables, coffee shops, and community groups. People talked about him, but not to him.

I disciplined him.

The word discipline is rooted in the word disciple. For a year I discipled this young man. I texted him words of encouragement. I sent emails letting him know I missed him in church. Monthly I would ask him to lunch. Over barbeque sandwiches I would talk with him about his sin and how to reconcile with those he'd harmed. I was unrelenting in my love and endless in my mercy toward him. Discipline is not punishment; it's the same word used by the Greeks when mending a broken limb. After the mending, the broken bone is stronger than before it's brokenness.  

People might ask, "But did you disciple the people he'd harmed?"

People in pain don't need discipline, they need healing. Unrelenting love and endless mercy is for sinners. Those who see themselves as innocent victims and believe that the source of their pain and trouble is the sin of others need "the balm in Gilead" and "the leaves of the Tree of Life" (Jesus Christ) to bring healing.  So, the answer to the question is "Yes," I encouraged those wounded by the actions of this young man to find their security, identity and happiness in Christ alone. I desire always to be compassionate, patient and encouraging during the process of their healing. When life brings a left-hook that knocks us flat, the process of getting back up is seldom easy.

God seems to allow hurtful and painful events to bring me to the place of finding my personal security, identity and happiness solely in Him. When people I love, material possessions, or possibly even my stellar reputation is lost, I am forced to find my source in Christ.  The good news is that after Christ brings me healing, His power begins to flow through me. When my cups is truly filled up by Him, I find His endless mercy and unrelenting love for me beginning to spill out from me toward others.

When I am in pain, I will sometimes mistakenly attribute my healingto the actions of another person (e.g. the sinner).  "If he would only truly repent..." or "If she would only change her ways." For this reason, unrelenting love and endless mercy toward sinners sometimes will sometimes offend me, particularly if it is toward someone whose hurt me. It feels right (and natural) to run and shun. But God's ways are different than my ways. He's a God of endless mercy and unrelenting love.

My father recently shared with me that he tells people that "we should say what needs said, do what needs done, and live the way we ought to live with our focus "Never About The Outcome" (NATO)."  If we focus on the outcome - for example, whether other people are really changing, or whether my terrible circumstances are improving, or whether the sinner is sincerely repenting - then our focus is misplaced. Our gaze should always be inward, looking to see if we have within us  "His divine power that has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness" (II Peter 1:3). If I can't give unrelenting love and endless mercy to sinners, as well as patience and compassion to the wounded, then somethings out of kilter within me.

One year ago, over lunch at a restaurant in North Enid, I asked this young man where he and his new wife were attending worship. He told me that recently they'd begun praying together, but they weren't attending corporate worship anywhere. I invited him to Emmanuel.

He looked at me intently and said, "Wade, if I walk in those doors, people will be offended. I've caused a lot of hurt."

I told him that worrying about the reactions of others is to ignore what is needed in his own life. Then I suggested, "When you come, walk down to the front of the church and you and your wife sit in the first three rows of the center section."

He looked at me incredulously. "Wade, people will be upset that we are even in church, not to mention we have the gall to walk to the front and sit."

I responded, "We bring prisoners to church every Sunday - we call them offenders. They sit on the first three rows. If anyone says anything to you about where you are sitting, just tell them, 'Wade invited us to come and we are sitting where the offenders sit.'"

Last Christmas this young man and his wife came - and sat where the offenders sat.

The process of bringing this man to repentance has been long and arduous. I have encouraged him to take ownership of his sin - quit blaming others for it - and seek forgiveness, resting in God's forgiveness of Him.  He has, but of course, there will be some who question whether his repentance is real or sincere. We can only live our lives consistent with our calling. God is responsible for the outcomes.

At least from my observation, through endless mercy and unrelenting love, this wayward son's dry bones have come alive.

Dry Bones should be more than just a song we sing on Sunday.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel - Jacob

December 15, 2016, 5:52 am

≫ Next: The God Who Blinds Works Within Human Minds

≪ Previous: Giving Others Endless Mercy and Unrelenting Love

$

0

0

Someone recently pointed out to me that years ago in small groups, whether it be Sunday School or independent Bible studies, Christians would talk openly about the dangers of living like a Pharisee. It seems, however, that many of us in evangelical churches struggle with a subtle rise of Pharisaical feelings toward sinners who cry for mercy from God. Jesus taught on this subject very clearly in Luke 18:9-14. 

9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Some might ask, "But is not the shame and guilt of sinners such that God would want us not associate with them, even if they cry out for mercy from God?"

I am reminded of the story of Jacob. He lied and deceived the people closest to him. He sought instant gratification instead of patiently finding contentment in his relationship with God. He failed his family, including his father Isaac and grandfather Abraham. He was by adulthood, in almost every sense of the word, a failure. 

Yet God loved him, and God pursued him.

In a wrestling match with God, Jacob found the very thing upon which he relied (his own strength), God broke. God crushed Jacob's hip. Literally, Jacob became a cripple. Yet, it was in his brokenness and through the crippling process that an utterly crushed Jacob "met God face to face." So it is that often in our brokenness and pain caused by sin we really meet our God. 

Interestingly, after the breaking, God changed Jacob's name to Israel. The lying, deceiving, and self-absorbed man God pursued became the father of the 12 Tribes of Israel, the chosen people of God in the Old Covenant.

Yet, throughout the Old Testament, when the prophets would urge the nation of Israel to repent, they never identified God as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel. Why? It seems God Himself wished to be known as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Listen to how God revealed Himself to Moses and the people of Israel on Mt. Sinai - at the very moment of entering into a covenant with them.

"I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob."Exodus 3:6

Israel is who Jacob became, but God kept Jacob's name before His people to remind them that He loves and pursues sinners. I believe it is always helpful for us to remember that God identifies as the God of sinners who cry for mercy.

He is the God of Jacob.

The God Who Blinds Works Within Human Minds

December 22, 2016, 10:17 am

≫ Next: The Greatest Gifts Are Those I Receive from God

≪ Previous: The God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel - Jacob

$

0

0

"The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see 

the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (II Corinthians 4:4)

Orthodox Jews call the fallen angel who deceived Adam and Eve by the name "Samael" - a compound name which means "the god who blinds." Paul, a teacher of the Jewish Law, may very well be referring to Samael in his second letter to Christians living in the city of Corinth when he mentions "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving" (II Corinthians 4:4).

We may think we understand physical blindness, but what does it mean for someone to be "blind in the mind"? 

If a physically blind person has never experienced the ability to see, he's hard-pressed to describe the pain of his blindness. Those who've first tasted of sight before going blind can easily describe their pain over the absence of light. 

So too, the person blind in the mind from birth has little ability to understand "the light of the glorious good news in Jesus Christ"(II Corinthians 4:4). He can't describe what he doesn't have because he doesn't know what it is he's missed.

So how does the "god who blinds" keep a person from seeing the beauty of this life through receiving Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?

A blind mind remains blind through a shared apathy. When blind people get together, they help and encourage one another, and convince themselves nothing else is needed, particularly any talk about a cure. Life is what it is. Those apathetic about Christ often gravitate toward others apathetic about Him. The blind in the mind don't care about any alleged good news. They're blind. They don't know they are, and the last thing they want is for someone to feel sorrow for them.

Then a blind mind continues in blindness through a strong enmity. When the good news of Jesus Christ is mentioned to one "blind in the mind," apathy turns  quickly to enmity. Anger toward the message of Christ is only secondary to animosity toward the person sharing the good news of Christ. Blind in the mind people don't like it pointed out they're blind and need the Light.

Finally, a blind mind remains blind through a substitute ecstasy. This, to me, is the most tell-tale sign of blindness. When I get my joy, my happiness,  my purpose,  my identity, or my hope in something other than Jesus Christ and the love of God for me in Christ, then I am "blind in the mind." However, when the anchor of hope for my life is Jesus Christ, I see this life the way it's meant to be seen, for I have found my source of contentment from the One thing I will never lose - a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius had a servant follow him around and whisper in his ear, "Remember yourself mortal,"when people became effusive in their praise of the emperor.

I wonder if every time we have apathy toward the Person and work of Jesus Christ, or when we find ourselves angry over the teachings of Christ, or during those times we lose ourselves in the idolatry of finding our happiness and security in things other than Christ, if God might send someone to whisper in our ears, "Remember yourself blind."