Labels

Over the years, it has been my pleasure to worship with many brothers and sisters in many different locations in the United States.  If I asked someone to visit these congregations and describe them to me in two words or less, there would no doubt be a great variety of descriptive labels.  Some of these terms would likely be:  Liberal, charismatic, institutional, non-institutional, fundamental, one-cupper, mainstream, non-cooperative, Holy Roller, legalistic, anti, instrumental, non-instrumental, conservative, contemporary, traditional, unorthodox, orthodox, normal, post-modern, and I am certain a number of other monikers I have not included.  Certainly not all of these congregations are standing in the truth.  God’s desire is that they all walk in truth for His Words will judge them in the final day (John 12:48).

Consider this in regard to labels: most people hate to be labeled by others.  One reason is the desired label of an individual is quite often not the same as the one applied by others.  Often times, the label may be considered offensive or even meant to be derogatory.  Once a label is affixed, it is possible the label may never be retracted or diminished in use whether accurate or not.  Labels can also often be confused.  For instance, one might call a congregation “liberal” and in that classification others may view it as synonymous with Holy Roller, post modern, and contemporary when nothing could be further from the truth.  The same could be said for the term “anti” being viewed as synonymous with non-institutional, non-cooperative, or one cupper.  Labels are frequently affixed with minimal knowledge of the body they supposedly represent.  The damage they do may be small or it may be great.  Brothers and sisters in Christ, though in error, may take such offence from the applied labels that they no longer would be willing to engage in dialogue with the labeler.  Those hearing the label without knowledge of what an individual or group practice, may have such an immediate reaction in their hearts that they do not attempt to gain clarification on what and why something is really believed.  When avoidance is exercised, truth cannot be taught and individuals cannot repent.  This would apply to those being labeled, the labeler, and those who act or fail to act based upon preconceived notions of a label.  Understand a brother and sister may be in error, but that does not make them a leprous, practicing sinner (Acts 18:24-26, 2 Peter 3:9).  If there is a mind to study, then the door cannot be shut by man (Matthew 7:7).

Imagine the use of the terms “liberal”, “mainstream”, or “anti”.  Do you have a specific image in your mind?  Certainly you do.  Humans tend to categorize things in their minds so we can understand them in a more simple fashion.  Categorically speaking, the term “liberal” in the realm of religion is often understood as a loosening of a standard.  Thus, a “liberal” congregation is one viewed as having loosened the standards of scripture enabling more activity than authorized.  A “mainstream” congregation is often viewed to be representative of most congregations and therefore generally adherent to authorized Biblical practices.  An “anti” congregation is often viewed as against certain activities and therefore, restricting itself to less than what the Bible is believed to authorize.  Having imagined the suggested terms, ask yourself which label you fit under.  Do you think a “liberal” considers himself “liberal”? or is it possible he sees himself “mainstream”?  Does a person considered “anti” view the “mainstream” as “liberal”?  One person’s “mainstream” may be another person’s “liberal” or “anti”.  A man’s classification or view of individuals or congregations means nothing.  Consider the next three paragraphs and the terms “liberal”, “mainstream”, and “anti”.

A congregation may be labeled “liberal” by some men or congregations because it uses Power Point projection to display songs for the congregation rather than use books.  Is the use of Power Point unauthorized by scripture?  Man has general authority to sing in worship (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16).  They have specific authority not to add to God’s word or take away from it (Galatians 1:8).   The use of Power Point is not an action which adds to the action of singing or takes away from it.  Many Christians have labeled others “liberal” in the past because of the use of white boards, pitch pipes, song books, PA systems, and other aids which do not add to the action of worship.  Without the backing of scripture, labels are worthless.

It has become a very common practice among congregations labeled “mainstream” to have teen classes outside of regular worship hours.  Bible study is extremely important for the growth of Christians (I Peter 2:2, 2 Timothy 2:15).  This is a standard of scripture!  Christians are to know the truth (John 17:17).  Yet, under the guise of getting to know God, a vast number of these teen classes are social gatherings disguised as bible study.  There is certainly nothing wrong with Christians gathering together socially day by day (Acts 2:46); nor is there anything wrong with encouraging the saints when they are gathered (Hebrews 10:24-25).  The problem with many (not all) of these gatherings, is they are trying to draw teens to the Church with social activity instead of scripture.  “Gather for pizza night [game night, basketball, movie night] and learn about God!”  How foolish God must seem for not drawing in potential Christians with parties, but instead relying on the power of the gospel to save (I Corinthians 1:21).  Yet, consider this: because a congregation is seen practicing something that is certainly not authorized, should it immediately receive the term “liberal”?  Most folks would hopefully disagree with such a hasty labeling, but should agree that the practice of growth through social means should be corrected.  Understand, there are a great number of congregations who practice an action in ignorance while being otherwise sound in scripture.  When such actions are observed, God’s standard needs to be examined and the practice stopped.  However, labeling a congregation based on a singular action (such as a social gathering under the guise of a Teen Bible Study) has a great possibility of being a wrong conclusion.  It is no different than attempting to condemn an elder based on one witness (I Timothy 5:19).

Now consider a congregation labeled “anti”.  They may be labeled so because they do not give funds out of the Church collection to organizations which run orphan homes.  Why do they do this?  Others may see this practice and immediately assume they know why this practice is being followed.  Their belief may be that the congregation thinks that orphans should not be cared for by the Church collection.  However, it is possible the congregation completely supports aiding homes with orphans where the eldership is under control of how the funds are spent.  Much like the supporting of missionary societies, many elderships cannot find Biblical authority in giving money to an entity which would hinder their ability to determine what is ultimately done with the funds given.  Do they object to the caring of orphans?  Absolutely not! Their concern is a misuse of the funds and thus, a lack of good stewardship.  A quick labeling of an action before clarification of why it occurs often results in a false conclusion. The first problem presented in the labeling of a congregation is assuming the reason why they are practicing something.  The second problem is assuming if they practice one action the same as other groups that they are the same as the other groups.  These are both unwise assumptions.  Some congregations have a Sunday evening service while others do not.  Should it be assumed that one is more devoted to God than the other?  Should they be labeled though no knowledge of why they are taking such an action is known?  There are a great number of congregations that have practices which may be considered “anti” or “liberal”.  Knowing God’s standard and knowing why a congregation is practicing a particular action is very important before it should labeled and considered in error.

It should be asked, how many “check marks” does a congregation receive, before they are labeled liberal, mainstream, or anti?  Is it one?  Two?  Ten?  Does a single point of error mean the congregation should be avoided like the plague?  The Bible directs any point of error should be admonished and studied for correction (Matthew 18:15-17, James 5:19-20), but when are they certified as “X” type of congregation?  Man seems to label and act without knowledge quite often.  Labeling is often inconsistent and may even be based upon spats which happened years ago or by the opinion of one man or family.  The Bible itself has a pretty good labeling approach.  A man is either in sin or he is not.  He is either following the will of God or not.  The issue is not arbitrarily assigned based on emotions or how egregious or harmless a practice is.  The Bible does not make mistakes about labeling what a man is doing.  It is either right or it is wrong.  The Bible does not make assumptions about a life; it simple directs a man how to live it.

While labeling is a common practice in nearly all aspects of men’s lives, if undertaken, it should be done with great care according to God’s standard.  God has organized congregations to be independent of one another, yet, in the unity of the faith. They have local elderships which are called upon to lead their congregations according to the word of God and keep them from evil (Acts 20:28).  This is done in a variety of ways and though the decisions may be different at times, they are not necessarily in error. In regard to labeling, if it is done without scriptural backing, it is worthless.  If an entire congregation is labeled in regard to a singular action, the label has a great chance of being incorrect.  A label based on assumption is a poorly conceived one.  Brothers and sisters in Christ are to encourage one another (Hebrews 10:24).  If they are found to be in error, Christians are to rebuke one another in love as God rebukes man through His Word (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, Revelation 3:19).  Labeling rather than coming to the aid of an erring brother or sister is not according to the standard of God’s Word.  With patience, caution, and consideration, let us always approach our brothers and sisters, seeking to grow and to unite in Christ.

Posted in Travis Main | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Labels

Top Science or Political Agenda?

The question often arises about whether mainstream media outlets are actively promoting an anti-God agenda. There can be little doubt that certain news stories “sell” better, but what about news outlets that demonstrate a clear anti-god agenda? What should be a Christian’s response be to authors and news media that clearly reveal a bias that supports error, immorality, and unrighteousness?

In the August 20 issue of USA Today, the editors used the entire back page of the “Money” section to announce what they feel are the “Top 25” discoveries from the field of science from the past twenty-five years. The feature page noted, “With help from long-time science observers, USA Today’s Dan Vergano counts down the 25 top milestones.” However, rather than an unbiased evaluation of scientific advances, Vergano did a phenomenal job of highlighting the usual atheistic tenets and evolutionary dogma—items that consistently get headlines and sell papers. One wonders if there was an agenda to leaving out medical cures, surgical advances, and health discoveries in favor of topics that were blatantly anti-God, and, in some cases, were poor scientific studies or not even science discoveries at all. The “Top 25” list included:

Big Bang Fingerprinted

Water on Mars

Oldest Hominid

Evo Devo

Hobbit Discovered

Embryonic Stem Cells

Hello Dolly

Feathered Dinosaur Found

Intelligent Design Suit

Climate Accord

Abrupt Climate Change

Accelerating Universe

One wonders if the editors of USA Today are aware that the Big Bang Theory is still a theory—a weak theory that cannot account for the initial existence of matter. One wonders if the editors were aware that no water has been found on Mars and that the alleged “evidence” for water has been hotly contested by many scholars in the field of astronomy.

One wonders if the editors of USA Today are aware that the creature they identify as “Oldest Hominid” came from bone fragments that consisted of a tooth, a piece of a tooth, a piece of bone, a mandible, and a partial postcranial skeleton? One wonders if the editors were awarethe authors described the cranial fossils as “strikingly chimpanzee-like in morphology” (Nature, 1994: 371:310, emp. added). One wonders if the editors knew this fossil find had to be renamed after further examination, and that Donald Johanson (the discoverer of “Lucy”) admitted in the March 1996 issue of National Geographic that A. ramidus possessed “many chimp-like features” and that “its position on the human family tree is in question” (189[3]:117).

One wonders if the editors of USA Today are aware that many scientists have attributed the small stature of the alleged “Hobbit” creature to encephala. Many experts recognize this creature not as some evolutionary ancestor but rather a sick human whose growth was shunted by disease—not evolution.

One wonders if the editors of USA Today are aware that adult stem cells are crushing embryonic stem cells when it comes to actual results published in peer-reviewed journals. The reality is most scientists recognize that the push for those embryonic stem cells is totally unnecessary. The current “score” is 72 to 0—meaning there are currently seventy-two conditions successfully being treated using adult stem cells (see http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm), whereas embryonic stem cells have still yet to show any benefit in treating human conditions.

One wonders if the editors of USA Today are aware of how many failed attempts it took Dr. Ian Wilmut just to create one sheep? (Answer: 277) One also wonders if they are aware of the fact that the cell used to create Dolly was taken from a six-year old sheep and that Dolly died prematurely from “old age related disorders,” with her telomeres (telomeres keep the ends of the various chromosomes in the cell from becoming attached to each other) already showing signs of deterioration.

One wonders if the editors of USA Today are aware that many paleontologists do not buy into the dinosaur-to-bird theory. One wonders if they are aware that many scientist believe that rather than feathers, the frayed fibers that have been found are collagen fibers that have nothing whatsoever to do with either feathers or birds.In discussing one of these finds in the journal Science, Ann Gibbons referred to “roughly a half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens” admitted that “the structures are not modern feathers” (1997, 278:1229).

One wonders why the editors of USA Today consider the Intelligent Design lawsuit a “Top 25 Scientific Milestone.”

One wonders if the editors of USA Today are aware that scientists in many countries are ridiculing the United States for the widespread media attention given to Global Warming, a theory that is driven by politics more than by scientific fact.

One wonders if the editors of USA Today are awareof the logical conclusion that must be drawn regarding an “Accelerating Universe.” Vergano noted, “Exploding stars, receding at an ever-faster pace, stunned scientists by showing that an anti-gravity effect is relentlessly expanding the universe. This expansion still defies explanation.” What Vergano and the editors of USA Today forgot to mention is that an expanding Universe rules out the possibility for an eternal existence to the Universe. The only two remaining possibilities for explaining its very existence is: (1) it sprang into existence from nothing; or (2) it was created by something or someone superior to it. We know that something doesn’t come from nothing, so the very discovery of an accelerating universe helps prove the existence of an Almighty Creator.

One wonders if the editors of USA Today were honest in their evaluations of scientific achievements or if they had an agenda to promote to the American public. Then again, maybe one doesn’t have to wonder.

Posted in Brad Harrub | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Top Science or Political Agenda?

You Can’t Handle the Truth

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteouness” (Romans 1:18, emp. added).

The first introduction Jim and I had to the new Creation Museum was one we will not soon forget. There was a feeling of excitement in the air, and the entire staff appeared extremely happy to be working towards a common goal. Opening day was just a few short weeks away, and the reality was finally coming true. They had constructed an amazing facility that clearly taught a biblical worldview of man. During our visit, Mark Looy, the chief communications officer and co-founder of Answers in Genesis, received several calls from media sources who wanted a walk-through or interview. Mark let us know that every day they received a massive amount of calls from the press—some from “friendly cameras” and some “non-friendly.” But he also made it clear that the doors were open wide to all mainstream media who wanted to report on the museum. Everyone was welcome.

Contrast that with the reception from a natural history museum in Virginia. A few weeks after our visit to the Creation Museum, I conducted a Christian evidence seminar for a congregation in Virginia. While I was there, the preacher had arranged a group tour of the local museum of natural history. A large group from the Church shifted their work schedules so that they could enjoy a tour and listen to the museum educator describe all of the exhibits—with one minor caveat. I would be touring with the group, and the preacher asked if I would point out errors along the way. The day before we were to tour the museum, the preacher called all of the local media outlets within a 50-mile radius and invited them to bring their cameras and record the scene of a “qualified scientist pointing out errors in the museum.” Several media outlets called the museum and asked them what time the tour was to begin…and that’s when museum realized they had a serious public relations nightmare on their hands.

Originally, the group was scheduled to meet with our guide at 2:00 p.m. on Saturday. Not wanting to walk into the museum “cold,” I asked the preacher if I could have a few minutes in the museum without the cameras present. So he and I went through around 11:00 a.m. that morning—walking through like any other visitor. I quickly noticed that just like the Creation Museum, their great hall also featured a dinosaur. However, this replica skeleton of a T-Rex was “dated” during the late Cretaceous Period (89-65 million years ago). We also noticed that museum employees were closing down certain areas/exhibits within the museum, and as such there would not be a whole lot to see when the cameras were there.

Our reception at 2:00 p.m. that afternoon was cold. Where just three hours earlier the museum had been inviting and open, it was now covered with security guards. They made it immediately clear that the television cameras were not allowed in the museum. They were shut out. The museum’s media policy would only allow “positive” promotion. Our museum guide was a no-show. And so, with cameras rolling from the steps outside the museum, the media captured the moment that would later be retold on the evening news. It appeared the museum could not handle the truth—or at the least had something to hide. Proverbs 18:17 records, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.”

One would think that all museums (whether supporting creation or evolution) would welcome media with open arms. As they often say in Hollywood, any publicity is better than no publicity. But this museum of natural history was unwilling to allow the cameras in to film the “errors.” After all, if the public caught wind of the errors, they might hold the museum accountable, or stop coming altogether.

Many might ask, “Why does it matter what we believe about dinosaurs? Why is this topic such an important one?” The reason centers on the worldview that our children and grandchildren are forming. Evolutionists are well aware that if they can implant “millions and millions” of years into the mind of a child, the end result will be the child grows up with a secular worldview that does not fit the accounts in the Bible. And they recognize dinosaurs are just the bait to hook our children. What about you? Have you taken the bait? When it comes to the worldview you have embraced and will pass along to your posterity, can it handle the Truth?

Posted in Brad Harrub | Tagged , | Comments Off on You Can’t Handle the Truth

Slaves that Don’t Work

Recently, a good friend of mine gifted a book to me called “Slave”.  The book is written by John MacArthur.  Though it ultimately contains a Calvinist flavor which is a sorely faulty doctrine, the information and viewpoint the book has to offer on the chosen slavery of Christians is exceptional.  I highly recommend the book.  However, the purpose of this article is not to provide a book review.  The objective is to demonstrate how the corruption of slavery has abounded in the world and how it is currently crippling nations.   Examined in this article will be the Christian, slavery in the first century,  slavery in the early United States, and even wider spread slavery today not only in the United States, but the world at large.  There is certainly a Godly message that will be shared, but also an important social and political message that will be conveyed as well.  Yes, men are slaves to sin (Romans 3:23, 6:23, 7:23), but this will not be the slavery to be discussed.

The greek term “doulos” used over one hundred times in the New Testament means slave.  Yet, many biblical translations (for many reasons) use the term servant, which certainly has a different connotation (all verses quoted in this article using the term doulous will be appropriately translated slave).  Christians should not avoid the term slave, but love it, for they are indeed slaves of Christ.  Christians are cared for by a good master (Luke 18:18, John 10:11).  Yet, Christ does not exist as some sort of Santa Claus to give Christians a life of luxury and ease, forgiving their every blatant disobedience as if they deserved it by simply calling themselves Christians. Yes, a number of Christian’s lives demonstrate they believe this as they fail to serve Christ each and every day.  Jesus is not fooled.  He knows whether or not a person loves him.  Jesus states in John 14:15: “If you love me keep my commandments.”  There is no reward for a lazy, disobedient slave (Matthew 25:24-26).  The relationship is very clear.  The disobedient to Christ will meet a horrible end (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9, Romans 2:7-11, I Peter 4:17).  The Christian is supposed to die to themselves and live for only Christ (Galatians 2:20).  Yet, many play church, play Christian, and pretend godliness.  Christianity is not about just avoiding things which are bad, but doing things which are good – and commanded (Matthew 5:44, 25:41-46, Galatians 6:1-2, 10, James 1:27, 2:15-16, I Thessalonians 5:15).

MacArthur’s book clearly demonstrates through the use of scripture that a Christian is a slave.  However, this is again, not the objective of this article.  So the focus will now turn to the life of a slave in the time of Jesus and the expectation of a slave.  In the first century slavery was wide spread.  Even former slaves would have slaves.  Mac Arthur states that “Roughly one-fifth of the [Roman] empire’s population were slaves – totally as many as twelve million at the outset of the first Century AD”. (1)   Slaves worked in all manners of professions and were of all ages, races, and sexes.  Loyal slaves received honor and were treated well, however, do not misunderstand their position.  Macarthur quoting the book “The Civilization of Rome” states “The slave had, in principle, no rights, no legal status whatsoever; he was a chattel owned by his master.” (1)  A Christian is in this exact state.  Their life exists only to serve Christ (Ephesians 2:10).  The Bible is provided so that man can do exactly that (2 Timothy 3:16-17)!

The Bible does not condemn slavery in any sense as some might expect.  Rather, it upholds slavery and gives guidelines for it.

Ephesians 6:5-8 – Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.

Colossians 3:22-25 – Slaves, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:  And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.  But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

1 Timothy 6:1-2 – Let as many slaves as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

Titus 2:9-10 – Exhort slaves to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

The above verses are very clear that a slave must obey his master.  It is his duty and it ultimately glorifies God.  This does not give Masters any license to abuse their slave.  There are guidelines for care of the slave:

Colossians 4:1 – Masters, give unto your slaves that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

Ephesians 6:9 – And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

These verses express the responsibility of a Master to treat his slave with kindness.  That kindness does not excuse the slave from work or forbid the master from commanding it.  Ephesians 6:9 stresses a master’s kindness that is equal to that of the slave (see above verses from Ephesians 6:5-8), but of critical importance is the identification that they too have a Master who is in heaven.  This identifies the masters as being slaves as well.  None are exempt from serving God, for even Jesus humbled himself as a slave and did all that God commanded him:

Philippians 2:7-8 – But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a slave, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

John 5:30 – I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

John 12:49-50 – For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.  And I know that his commandment is life eternal: the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.

For those that think God is the kind of master who just wants you to be happy and never experience any discomfort in your life, consider the great work mixed with persecution and ultimately crucifixion that God expected of Jesus.  Is the Christian greater than Jesus?  Slaves of the first century, though cared for by their masters in either good or bad fashion, had the duty to serve.  They had no choice in the matter unless they desired punishment.  Work was expected of the slave.

In early American History, there were a large number of slaves.  Some had good masters, others did not.  Unfortunately, unlike the Biblical view of slaves being humans who deserved to be treated with kindness like their masters, a large number were not.  Was this different from a great number of slaves throughout the world, in many ages before, during, and after the first century?  Sadly, it was not.  Unfortunately, unkind slavery has struck practically every race the world has known at one time or another.  Yet, the slaves of America were provided for in one way or another by their masters.  Those slaves generally received food, clothing, medical care, and shelter as in the Roman times for they were considered an asset of a master by which he expected a profitable return.  As in past ages, a lazy, disobedient slave was punished. The slaves were expected to serve.  They were expected to work.  They did not have the choice to lay about and do nothing.

Today, it is this author’s privilege to have friends who have black skin.  We have talked about the slavery of black people in the past and also realized the slavery of other races today and in the past.  I greatly respect and cherish the friendships I have with these people and consider some as personal mentors, brothers, and sisters who have had profound impact upon my life.  However, it is also realized that this people is quite largely still in slavery.  What???  Yes, black Americans are still largely slaves.   No, not in the sense their great, great grandfathers and grandmothers were.  Nor are we talking about a slavery to sin which all men wrestle with in their lives.  The slavery they wrestle with today does, however, have a likeness to the slavery of Christianity.  It is a lifestyle which has been chosen.  Single parent households, abortions, joblessness, illiteracy, criminal records, drug use, and all manner of social ills characterize a disproportionate portion of black Americans.  This does not need to be so.  American history is full of successful black Americans.  Some of their beginnings were more meager than others, but their accomplishments were above the majority of all Americans.  There are and have been great black inventors, scientists, doctors, authors, evangelists, lawyers, teachers, and statesman.  So why is there a great slavery of social and economic woes to this people?

A great number of these people have been sold into slavery based on worthless promises.  They are largely no different than a growing population of Americans of all colors.  They have been promised by political parties and government that all their needs will be taken care of by someone else.  Can’t afford to put enough food on the table?  Don’t work harder, the government will provide.  Can’t afford a house?  Don’t take personal initiative, the government will provide.  Out of a job?  Don’t look for one, the government will provide months and years of unemployment for you.  Need an education?  The government has money for that.  What about medical insurance?  The government will cover that too!  In the 2008 elections for President of the United States, a woman was shown on camera raving about her belief that Barak Hussein Obama was going to pay her mortgage and get her a brand new car.  The difference between the black population and some other races of Americans is this: Obama and his party played on long past injustices to encourage a lack of initiative and dependency.  Whether through race bating, class warfare, or outright deception, everything is promised to gain power and little to nothing is delivered in return. If a promise is delivered it frequently results in further enslavement of the recipients.   It is the enslavement of a people who are told they don’t have to work.  They have chosen a master who is unkind, deceptive, and cruel.

When a mindset is created which thinks it is entitled to something or it is owed something by others, then improvement and growth stop.  All races of Americans have been enslaved by the master of low expectations and dependency.  They have become slaves who do not work.  Their spirits have been crushed, their hands are out, and they are declining as a people.  These declines exhibit themselves economically, socially, and morally as the slaves begin to do or say anything to get their myopic, self-indulgent needs met rather than serve others, improve themselves, and contribute to society.  The end result of such slavery is the loss of blessings the individual might have once had.  Ultimately, despite any brief illusion to the contrary, they will be forced to work for a master.  The master doesn’t give without expecting something in return.  The political party master wants his votes.  The Government master wants his power and money.  Some call it socialism or communism, but its result is an oppressed and disheartened people who have nothing and can do nothing for themselves.  If they resist they are punished by one means or another.  If they do not obey they are punished.  They no longer have freedom and it is because they chose to give it up long beforehand.

Americans are not alone in today’s enslavement of the masses.  Slaves who don’t work are found all over the world.  Greece is a prime example of a people who have chosen to put their hands out to a master who promised to care for them in return for nothing.  Larger than Greece, the European Union is falling apart because of nations who want to be given everything, while doing no work.  Slaves must work.  Sooner or later, they will work.  Their punishment comes through their self inflicted choices.  Historically, societies who chose not to work, but instead put their hands out expecting something for nothing, find themselves in depressed and trying times with cold and cruel masters.  Those who had good masters, but took advantage by not working, ruined them.  This is quickly becoming the case for more responsible countries of Europe.

What is the solution?  The solution is finding a good master and being willing to work hard for him.  America was founded on a strong belief in God.  The people who came to its land learned they had to be hard working or starve.  They dabbled with the concept of letting others care for them and freeloading off their work, but learned that their own hard work led to reward.  Along with the reward, came graciousness and aid to others who may have been less fortunate, but were also trying to work and provide for their families.  In early America the Biblical phrase, “If a man will not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10 ) was adopted rather quickly.  As the country grew and men enjoyed the fruit of their labors, they were able to hire other men and women willing to work and both benefited.  They understood relationships are built on the solid contribution  and responsibility of all parties concerned.  Certainly, the country grew with the aid of slaves, good and bad slaves with good and bad masters.  The point is the American system which later would bless the entire world with its goods and services was built on work.  It was built on a Biblical concept.  The country adopted the motto, “In God We Trust”.  They chose their master and He blessed them abundantly.  Now, as many Americans are choosing different masters promising much for nothing, history should be remembered.  Consequences should be recalled.   When the slave doesn’t work, bad times are coming.

2 Peter 2:1-3 – But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.  And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.  And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

(1) Macarthur, John.  Slave: the hidden truth about your identity in Christ. 2010

Posted in Travis Main | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Slaves that Don’t Work

Upon Every First Day of the Week

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. (1 Cor. 16:1-2)

The authority for the practice of a weekly collection within the churches of Christ comes from 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. As long as I can remember, this passage has been quoted prior to taking up that collection. There are some among us today, however, who have challenged this practice. They suggest that Paul’s instruction only applied to the one-time collection for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26). They conclude that the church need not necessarily take up a collection upon every first day of the week. An additional argument that has been made is that the expression “lay by him in store” does not refer to the collection of the saints in the assembly, but only at one’s own home. I wish to respond to these suggestions.

First, there is no doubt that within the context of 1 Corinthians 16, Paul has reference to a collection being taken up for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26). Paul says as much in Acts 24:17, “Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.” This was a special collection. However, Paul had deeper purpose; he wanted the Gentiles to show their Christian fellowship with the Jews in a physical way (Rom. 15:27). The contribution is a unique way of showing Christian fellowship with other Christians. This is a point of which we must not lose sight in this discussion. The purpose of fellowship is a purpose that persists through all contributive activity in the New Testament, even contributions not related to the specific occasion of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 (see Acts 2:42; Rom.12:13; Phil.1:5-6, 4:15; Gal.6:6; Heb.13:6). In other words, this purpose suggests a general schema in which all contributive activity in the church was to occur, implying a persistent pattern of behavior relative to all the churches. The point is this: while the occasion for this contribution was to help the poor among the saints at Jerusalem, the principles being taught in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 were general in scope, and not just applicable to this occasion alone. The frequency of such fellowship is specified here as being upon the first day of every week.

Second, the Greek prepositional phrase par’ heauto is said to mean “at home.” The Greek scholar A. T. Robertson suggests this specific meaning in his Word Pictures of the New Testament. The general meaning of the Greek preposition para with the dative case is “(nearly always of the pers[on]) nearness in space at or by (the side of), beside, near, with, acc[ording] to the standpoint fr[om] which the relationship is viewed.”1 The phrase could mean “at home” given a certain context, but not necessarily. The same prepositional phrase (par’ heauto) is used in Luke 9:47, “And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him.” The words “by him” in this verse is the prepositional phrase par’ heauto. In Luke 9:47, it simply means “alongside of him,” that is, “near to him,” or “in his personal space.” This prepositional phrase is also used in the Septuagint in four places: Exodus 16:18, Proverbs 26:5, 12, 28:11. In each of these instances, the words par’ heauto indicate nearness to one’s person whether literally or figuratively. The phrase has the connotation of something personal, whether in space, time, or manner. Since the phrase is adverbial in 1 Corinthians 16:2, it could be translated “personally.” The suggestion that the Greek prepositional phrase par’ heauto means “at home” is not necessarily warranted.

Third, the context of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 is of a corporate responsibility. In 1 Corinthians 16:1, Paul says, “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.” Paul gave these instructions to the churches, corporately. The churches of Galatia had been instructed to give, and Paul was giving the same instruction to the church at Corinth. The implication was that this responsibility was a corporate one, and not just an individual one. That is, the church as a whole had an interest in ensuring that the members participated in the collection, and when the collection had been gathered by Paul, the church as a body was said to have given it. The churches of Macedonia were also corporately commended for having fulfilled this responsibility in 2 Corinthians 8:1. How could the church corporately ensure the members’ participation? Simple. As a body, they took up a collection upon the first day of the week, the day that they met for the purpose of partaking of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). The Greek preposition kata in 1 Corinthians 16:2 is distributive and indicates frequency: every first day of the week. This practice of the church meeting on the first day of the week was begun in Acts 2. The day of Pentecost was a Sunday, the day after the Sabbath, the first day of the week. This practice was continued with such frequency that the apostle John eventually referred to it as “the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10). That the seven churches of Asia (and others) understood which day to which “the Lord’s day” referred is evident from the fact that John doesn’t explain which day it was. The church’s corporate activities were practiced upon the first day of the week (Acts 2:47, 20:7). If saving funds were to be done merely at one’s home, why was this day specified? Any other day would have been sufficient for such a purpose. It is not mere coincidence that the apostle Paul chose this day in 1 Corinthians 16:2.

Fourth, the instructions Paul gave to the churches of Galatia concerning giving were not exclusive to the occasion of helping the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. Galatians 6:6-10 reflects these concerns. Paul’s instructions to the churches of Galatia included contributing regularly to those who were teaching the saints. This is the force of the Greek verb koinoneo in Galatians 6:6; they were to have fellowship with their teachers by virtue of their supporting him monetarily. The present active imperative nature of the verb implies that they were to do this regularly. Moreover, the notion of sowing to the Spirit in Galatians 6:8 also has reference to monetary giving. (Compare the same imagery of sowing and reaping in 2 Cor.9:6 where the context is clearly monetary giving.) Moreover, Galatians 6:10 has reference to giving monetarily, as the occasion arises, to anyone who has a physical need, but especially Christians. Paul is saying in Galatians 6:6-10 that the responsibility of the church is to do this: 1) pay the preacher, 2) give to those who are in need whether Christians or not. I have no doubt that Paul gave instructions to the churches of Galatia regarding the collection for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem, but he gave these other instructions first. We must not exclude any of the orders concerning giving that Paul gave to the churches of Galatia from the context of 1 Corinthians 11:1; the latter instructions must be viewed in the context of the former.

Fifth, Paul did not want to take up any collections when he came to Corinth. He says this specifically in 1 Corinthians 16:2. In fact, this is why he wanted the brethren to regularly give every first day of the week into a treasury. The Greek verb thesaurizo has reference to a treasury of money. If each Christian at Corinth were to put something from himself into his own personal treasury “at home,” when Paul arrived, a collection would necessarily need to be made to take money from all of the individuals who had saved up, but had not contributed to the general treasury of the church. However, Paul specifically said that he wanted there to be no collections when he came. This meant that he expected all of it to be in one place upon his arrival. What better place to keep it than in the general treasury of the church? Hence, the context forbids the notion that Paul was telling each individual Christian to save up money at his own home. Instead, his giving was to be done on the first day of the week, when the church assembled together on the Lord’s Day to partake of the Lord’s Supper, and the contribution was to be put into the general treasury. This was an act of worship, because in giving, they were participating in fellowship (koinonia) with one another as they did so, and thus directly glorifying God by their unity of spirit and purpose. This practice was not limited to the church at Corinth alone, because Paul taught the same thing to the churches of Galatia, Macedonia, and everywhere he went (1 Cor. 4:17, 7:17).

If an individual Christian can say that he has monetarily prospered, then he has an obligation to give upon every first day of the week. Some do not monetarily prosper every week. They are not obliged to give. However, for those who do, regular giving is not only authorized, it is commanded. There is no doubt in my mind that the church at Corinth was being instructed to fulfill a specific occasion of giving in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. However, there is also no doubt that the principles of their giving were principles that were taught to all of the churches with which Paul had association, in Galatia, Macedonia, and Corinth. The sustained purpose of their giving was to have fellowship in the work of the Lord. Their end result was to support those in need. They did this by corporately treasuring up monies upon the first day of the week that came from the personal earnings of each individual member. It was a corporate responsibility that the church was said to have accomplished. The specific occasion of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 was not exclusive of any other occasions of giving, and the monies collected were all placed into a general treasury to be available when the time came for it to be used. Those who argue against this aspect of worship that the Lord’s church observes every first day of the week, simply do not understand the concept of corporate giving. Upon the first day of every week, let us regularly give to God’s work.

1 Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Second Edition.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Upon Every First Day of the Week