Discussion on "What is a Christian?"

The other label that I have had a problem with for a long time, however, is “Christian”. Mostly because the concept of Christian is so far from the Christ-follower the label was intended to be. Now, Christianity is Constantinianism and a Christian is a political label as well as a theological one.

I had a librarian last year treat me suspiciously because a friend of mine told her I was a pastor, and you know what, I understand why. Because the term “Christian” so often is equated with hypocrite that I don’t like using the term. In Bangladesh, the term Christian is a cultural term, not a religious one, so the Muslim converts there call themselves Isa followers (Isa being the Koranic name for Jesus). I’m with them. I am a Jesus follower. I am held accountable by the Mennonite church, but if I am anything less than a follower of Jesus– whether Mennonite or Liberal or whatever– then I don’t deserve to have his name applied to me.

Steve K



But can’t the term be redeemed? I notice a tendency of some to retreat from the terms because they aren’t comfortable with the way the term brands them, rather than being empowered to change the perception of the term itself.

Moreover, what are you implying by saying you are a “Christ-follower” instead of a Christian? That Christians don’t follow Christ?
Devan


I definitely understand where you’re coming from. I’ve done some inner city ministry, and we consistently identified ourselves as “followers of Jesus,” not as Christians. The cultural assumptions that are tied to the term “Christian” can immediately close some doors, but I don’t think the word is beyond redemption.

I strongly believe that our obedience and love for each other are capable of overwhelming any prejudice against “Christians” in the minds of those we encounter. “By this all men will know that you are my disciples…” I tend to focus on interpersonal relationships much more than impersonal “societies” and “cultures,” though.

In our inner city work, once people got to know us and they got over the fact that we were “church people,” we were able to build some genuinely constructive relationships. I think ultimately the terms don’t matter, so long as we are indeed following Christ and letting people know that we are following him. This is what should unify us, not necessarily the label that we use.

Sean

Devan:
Most Christians don’t follow Christ. They talk about Christ without being Christlike, wear crosses without carrying them, attack their enemies instead of loving them, build up kingdoms instead of seeking God’s.

Of course, not all Christians are like this. But do we really want to label ourselves with something that most people connect in a word association test with “hypocrite”?
Steve K


I disagree with the statement that most Christians don’t follow Christ. I don’t think any of us do. The standard we’re supposed to measure ourselves against is much higher than just not killing our enemies; we’re supposed to love them as well. Jesus says that even insulting someone is as bad as killing them.

Our biggest enemy lies not outside of ourselves, but in our own hearts. We are all murderers. If we aren’t willing to recognize that every one of us is a hypocrite in one way or another, we’re not being honest with ourselves.

Much as I’d like to dissociate myself with people like Dobson and Robertson, they’re my brothers in Christ, and I’m supposed to love them and work towards unity with them. If we can’t love our brothers who we can see, how can we say that we love God, who we can’t see? Instead of trying so hard to associate ourselves with the right group (whoever they are), we should be focusing on doing our best to obey Christ and love others. The rest of it will take care of itself.
Sean


Sean,
I think you’re on to something here. I often feel like we’re good at loving our enemies far away, but when it comes to loving folks like Dobson and Robertson, we’re not so good. Like it or not, those are exactly the folks Jesus was telling us we’ve got to love. That doesn’t mean not challenging them or disagreeing with them, but it does mean that those actions should be grounded in the same compassion we have for our Iraqi brothers and sisters.

As far as hypocrisy goes, I think we’re all guilty of it in different ways. There are a whole lot worse things to be associated with then hypocrisy (which isn’t to say Christianity hasn’t managed to be associated with those too). Hypocrisy at least implies that we have a goal and are falling short. If we’re going to see transformation in the church its going to be when we consistently, lovingly call ourselves and our brothers and sisters in Christ to a higher standard. But to do that, we also need to identify the common ground we share. Which is what excited me about Zack’s post in the first place. For the first time in a long time, it helped me identify some common ground with Christians with whom I usually only see our difference.
Tim


The difference between Dobson and terrorists or the guy who calls me an idiot for speaking the gospel is that Dobson supposedly “knows” the truth. He is a Christian leader who is denying the gospel.

The difference (I hope!) between us who screw up and we know we screw up and that is that we repent. We screw up and then we realize our fault and we try to make it right. What Jesus is opposed is the hypocrisy of those who take their clear sin and make it a part of their theology.

There are a couple ways this could be done– in Dobson’s way, by saying that Jesus WANTS us to bomb terrorists (after all, GWB prays, right?). Or, we could say, “God forgives everything, so we can’t judge anyone, not even ourselves.”

The New Testament strongly disagrees. It says numberous times that we will be judged for everything we do and say, except for that which we repent of. Jesus condemned the Pharisees in very harsh (even insulting!) terms in Matt 23. Paul said that we do not have the right to judge those outside the church, but inside the church, we’ve got to straighten it out. (I Corinthians 5)

Nevertheless, we DO need to love our enemies. And if our enemies are in the church, and they need to repent, then the most loving thing to do is to gently, kindly, tell them to repent and to get right with Jesus.

We can’t just pick and choose which morality we are going to correct in others. We need to let Jesus do that. He commanded us to love our enemies, so we need to pray for the church leaders who are leading their followers gleefully into evil practice. And we cannot compromise.

Anyway, I call Christians really not followers of Jesus, not because they fail. Like you said, we all fail. They aren’t followers of Christ because they deny what Jesus said, because they’d rather listen to their theology than Jesus. “If anyone denies me before men, I will deny him before my Father in heaven.” matthew 10:33

Steve K

Steve,
I’d be interested to know how exactly you think Dobson and crew are denying the Gospel. The Gospel isn’t a list of social goals that we should be trying to achieve; it’s Christ and him crucified. We can disagree about what implications that has on our social actions, but I don’t think those are necessities of the Christian faith. I think Dobson is very misguided, but God is the one who judges his heart, not me.

I agree that we need to lovingly call the Church to repentance when it strays, and I think that we are certainly capable of judging those within the Church. This is exactly my point, though. By drawing lines with our labels that exclude these people, we remove any possibility of doing just that. If they’re no longer within the Body, we have no jurisdiction and they have no reason to listen to us.

This is so important to me because I grew up on military bases and have bucketloads of respect for the faith of Christians who are just-war theorists, even as I strongly affirm that I believe that they are wrong. As a “convert” to pacifism, I want to make sure that we don’t burn any bridges between Anabaptists and the rest of the Church. If we say that they are misguided, we allow for conversation and possibly conversion, but if we call into question their commitment to Christ, we immediately kill the possibility of dialogue.
Sean

Two responses:
First, I think we have a difference of opinion about what a “Christian” is. There could be two definitions– a cultural one in which anyone who gives intellectual assent to Jesus is “Christian”. And there is the biblical definition which is that anyone who ACTS like Jesus is their Lord is a “Christian”. To have Jesus as one’s Lord is not just to believe, but to obey and act like Jesus. Thus, those who talk about Jesus but don’t do what he says (like “Love your enemy” and “sell your possessions and give to the poor”) are only Christians in name, no matter how much they proclaim Christ crucified. This is in accord with what Jesus says in Matthew 7 (as well as other places)– “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father will enter.”

Secondly, I think you do have a point there as far as communicating with those who are “Christian” but do not obey or act like Jesus. If we completely alienate ourselves from them, then we can no longer communicate the full gospel. This is what evangelism is. Finding a way to acceptably communicate the full gospel to people who don’t know it or who refuse to listen to it. So I do not want to show animosity against “Christians”, but I do want to have a lifestyle and a speech in which I am displaying Jesus, but in a way I can be heard.

I hope I am doing that, though I stumble often.

Steve K

Economic Systems

The more I read about capitalism, the more its moral argument fails.

First, it has never been proven that the selfishness of the individual could ever become the good of society as a whole. The only good that has ever been created has been through accident or through self-sacrifice.

Second, Adam Smith, before he wrote the Wealth of Nations, wrote a preliminary essay on what he calls "sympathy", by which he meant empathy. His notion of capitalism depended on empathy-- the seller and employer understanding the needs of the buyer and the employee and desiring to meet it. However, our capitalistic system rather has the seller creating a need rather than meeting one. And the employer is taking advantage of the employee's desperation rather than considering their needs.

The capitalistic experiement was not to create wealth for a few, but wealth for all. Thus, the capitalistic experiment has failed.

Communism is a centrally run system where, again, the top fails to empathize with the lower classes. Thus, it topples.

Part of the problem with both systems is the natural tendancy of people to consider their privilaged status as "natural" or "normal". The corallary to that position is that other's poverty status is also "natural" or "normal".

This is why the position of Jesus and Paul is that social justice is founded on a tranformation of the mind. We have to be a bit more than human to create justice. We have to be willing to see ourselves as more than just who we are right now in order to sacrifice what we have in order to obtain benefits which we cannot see.

This is the Christian basis of social justice. Self-sacrifice to those who are not privilaged on the basis of obtaining unseen benefits. Yep, it requires faith. But that's what the church is about.

Women in Church Leadership

Steve,
I am no longer living in Chicago. I woke up one morning and found myself down by the train station. Well long story short, I am now in Canada eating a brisket. (JUST KIDDING). Seriously, Biblicaly, What is the role of women in the church? And how do we relate it to our current culture?
Gordon



As you know, this is an extremely controversial question. Some strong "biblicists" stand firmly by keeping women out of leadership in the church, while other "compassion and justice" folks insist that Paul's comments on women in leadership are antiquated and so we should ignore them and just look at the more positive statments about women, such as "there is no male or female in Christ."

Both of these notions I find to be looking at only part of the Biblical story.

For one, in the New Testament, there are women in all the leadership positions of the church, including a disciple of Jesus (Luke 10), the leader of a congregation (I Corinthians 16 and II John), deacon (I Timothy 3) and apostle (Romans 16). And there are women teaching men (Acts 16). And it is interesting that Paul was involved in many of these instances. So does Paul contradict himself? Even if we were talking about just a normal joe, I don't think that Paul would say and do one thing and then say the opposite. And if it is divine Scripture, I find that less likely.

There are two passages that give the basis of understanding that Paul is opposed to women in leadership roles, despite the evidence in the NT that he held the opposite view: I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2. Let's examine both of them.

I Corinthians 14:29-38

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.


In the context, Paul is speaking about order in prophecy, and how to be both spiritual and polite in the speaking of prophecy. First of all, someone is in charge-- the one who is seated, for everyone stood except for the teacher-- over the group of prophets and they had to listen to that one. And everyone takes their turn.
Then Paul seems to say that women could not prophesy, or "not speak". In the context, he might only be talking about prophecy, but if so, that is strange since it seems that he said that women could prophecy if their heads were covered in chapter 11 (which I think he did not say, but that's for another day, but at least he was accepting women prophets speaking in the church). So, again, is Paul contradicting himself? And why is he reacting so strongly after this statement to... what? He is giving a command and then immediately rebuking the Corinthians? Why?

Well, the broader context, from Chapter 7, Paul has been responding to the Corinthians about "that which you wrote." In other words, he received a letter from the Corinthians to which he is responding. This explains the many changes of subject he does in the letter. And it also explains many of the seeming "contradictions" in the text. Why? Because he is quoting from the letter he received from the Corinthians. This is why, in chapter 7, it is quoted "A husband shall not touch a wife" and then Paul contradicts it immediately. Because he was quoting a Corinthian position and then refuting it. Later on, in chapter 8, he quotes that "idols are nothing," and then in chapter 10 he says that "idols are demons." He is not contradicting himself, but the Corinthians.

Even so, here in this passage, he is speaking about orderliness in prophecy and how the lesser prophets need to pay attention to authority ("he who is sitting") and then he quotes a prophecy that was given to the Corinthians "Women are to keep silent in the churches..." etc. Paul recognizes this as the opposite practice of the rest of the churches, which he already spoke about in I Cor 11:19, that they can't have a standard practice or command that isn't accepted by all the other churches. Here, a prophet in Corinth is saying, "All women IN ALL THE CHURCHES must remain silent." Paul is responding by saying, "Who do you think you are? Are you the primary apostle that can tell all the churches what to do?" Then he says, "Instead, pay attention to what I'm telling you-- and I'm telling you to listen to the authorities in your church, do what they say and SHUT UP!"

So rather than Paul saying "women should be silent" Paul is actually saying, "Prophets who say that women should be silent should shut up themselves."

Then we've got the ever popular I Timothy 2

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.


First of all, I want to firmly agree that this was probably written by Paul and not some misogynist years after Paul. But I want us to understand clearly what Paul is saying here. First of all, he is not speaking to men and to women, but rather to husbands and to wives. This passage is a brief version of a "household text" of which we have many examples in Scripture, such as Ephesians 6, where instruction is given to different parts of a household. Husbands are commanded to go to the synagouge and pray with other husbands. This is specifically given to husbands because they are the head of the household and it is a part of their responsibility as the authority of the house.


Wives, however, have their own work to do. First, they aren't to be distracted by fleshly things such as beauty and cosmetics. This doesn't mean ANY braiding of hair, but the common practice of spending half of one's day caring for hair and beautifying oneself. The work they are to to is twofold-- first of all, submissiveness, and secondly childbearing. Who is the wife to be submissive to? Why, her husband, of course, as Paul says in I Corinthians 11. Women are not to submit to ALL men. Rather, wives are to submit to their husbands.

Thus, Paul is not speaking of church leadership here, but household leadership. Can women be leaders in the church? Yes, because there the kingdom standards apply instead of the standards of the world. But even there, wives should be submissive to their husbands, even as children should submit to their parents if they are living with them. So a wife should not think to teach her husband, but it is fine if she can teach other men. If men want to see in this passage all women submit to them, it is just a part of some patriartic fantasy. Let's face it, women often know better than us. And if any man is worth anything, they will ask women-- especially their wives-- to teach them.

And what about childbearing? I think its shorthand for the raising of children, even as it is in Genesis 3, where it says that women will bear children in pain. It is hard labor, raising children, especially the younger ones and, let's face it, it is almost always the mothers who do that job, even in todays "balanced" society. And note, Paul doesnt say that women will just be saved through the raising of children. Rather, he says that the raising of children will be enough to save them if they do it with gentleness and faith. In other words, whatever work God gives us, let's do it with Christlikeness. That is what will save us, not a specific work by itself.

Steve

Welcoming the Homeless Into Your Home

Good Morning Steve,
My name is Devan and I met you at the Mennonite Church USA conference this past July; I attended your lecture on gods and theology in the ancient world, and I sat with you at Willard Swartley's lecture on peace and justice. I had a chance to talk with you a little bit about your ministry and church for those experiencing homelessness. I was very intrigued and wanted to hear more but, alas, I was only in San Jose for 2 days.

I have, for a few months, been considering doing a similar ministry. Generally, my neighborhood doesn't have many chronically homelessness folks residing in or around it given that it is far from most of the human service agencies. Nonetheless, my neighborhood is known for gang violence, is one of the poorest in the city of Buffalo (with a 30% poverty rate, most of which is concentrated in blocks surrounding my home), and has a lot of youth who are steps away from serious incarceration or death. Many of them are in and out of homelessnesses from month to month. A ministry down the street from me (it's a thrift store) offers job training and steady pay to teenagers in the neighborhood - even if they leave for two weeks and come back needing more money - and some of the folks who work there have increasingly been asking me to get involved by mentoring those youth. I know that, eventually, this will mean making my home a place for them to come and feel welcome and get some food and have a chance to have someone listen.

I thought perhaps you would have some insight about how to safely open my home in that way. How did you do it? What are the anticipated challenges? Even if folks are coming into your home like that, there are still boundaries set I assume? What are they and how did you communicate to the folks you were welcoming how to respect those boundaries? Has anyone stolen things from you? How have you responded to this? I know this is a lot to ask, I appreciate any insight you are willing to give.
Shalom, Devan

That's great that you're thinking about such a needy and challenging ministry. I am actually sitting here thinking, "How WOULD you start a ministry like that?" The way we started was so "easy" and God-driven, it just started itself. But if you are really open and friendly to the kids, then you should go far.

And, yep, we've had stuff stolen from our place. One time we had a checkbook stolen, and we ended up losing a thousand dollars-- which, as you know, we couldn't afford. The lesson we learned from that is: Don't tempt people by having stuff out that is easy to steal. But we never pressed charges against anyone. Heck, we didn't know who stole the checkbook, anyway, and we wouldn't want to even file a police report because we don't want to be the cause of someone being sent to a place where they could learn worse things than on the street.

There was another guy who stole from us. He was a kleptomaniac, actually-- actually diagnosed. As soon as he stole something, he felt guilty and then would give it away. I just asked him to apologize to whomever he stole from and then he was welcomed back. He did. Another who stole from a church that we were meeting at didn't and I haven't seen him since. It's hard to draw that line, but there is a basic rule of the street-- you don't shit in your garden. Meaning, you don't do something bad to someone who is helping you. So, when the street ethic is the same as the biblical ethic, I try to support that.

Keep your eyes open and listen carefully. Thats the main thing. Assume that you don't know anything about anybody when you meet them and you will learn something surprizing and new. For most folks on the street-- unless they are deeply involved in a gang-- they are isolated and feel out on a limb. So be open about yourself. Most folks on the street can read somone who is being falsely sincere. And other folks will think that a person is being insincere when they aren't. Just be yourself as much as you can, share your opinions if you think they agree with them.

Try to build trust. Trust is earned, not given. And you are asking folks to come into your place, which is a foreign world to them. Welcome them, but don't overwhelm them. Treat them as you would an immigrant from another country. Be careful about their concerns and try to ask them about what their needs might be. They probably won't ask you for anything, so be generous.

Give whatever things of substance you can, but try to avoid giving money. If folks have addiction issues, then even if they have the best intentions and are sincere, they will use the money on their addiction. If you give clothes or blankets or anything, make sure the tags are off and there's no reciept, so they can't just return them and use the money for something that won't help them.

Now, do you have kids? I do, and that offers another level of challenges, but I won't get into it unless you have some. Actually, is there anyone living with you at all?

Ummm. I'm sure there's pleanty more I could say. But perhaps you were thinking of stuff that was more pratical. Have you got any questions? If I know, I'd be glad to answer, or at least give a thoughtul opinion about that of which I am clueless.

May God grant you peace and fullness in this ministry.

Steve K

Bonhoeffer and Ideologies

Have you read,'The Cost Of Discipeship'? Wow! So, what are your thoughts?
Gordon

Yes, I have read it. The Cost of Discipleship is great, for a book. But Bonhoffer went against the very principles he stated in that book when he worked to get Hitler assassinated. He chose to live against those principles. So it just goes to show that head knowledge only goes so far.
I have really appreciated the first part of his book, Ethics, and many people have praised his book "Life Together," although I didn't think it was as good as the other two.
Steve

Why is it great for a book? I am interested in what you really think. Are we as christians supossed to faithfull to our idolagies, no matter what? Gordon

We are not supposed to be faithful to ideologies. We are supposed to be faithful to Jesus. Bonhoeffer wrote this book, the cost of discipleship, as his best, most accurate expression of what it means to follow Jesus. He wrote it specifically against the church that ended up following Hitler and his regime.

Bonhoeffer knew that we were meant to follow Jesus, not the state, not ideologies, but the Lord. This is why he wrote the book. To inform us of what Jesus demanded-- not the church, not the state, but Jesus alone.

So when Bonhoeffer stood against the principles he wrote in this book, he was standing against his own best understanding of what Jesus demanded. He knew that Jesus wanted us to love our enemies, and that Jesus wanted us to sacrifice ourselves for the good of others. Bonhoeffer decided that he would compromise what Jesus demanded that he do for the sake of his country. Since he could not find a way to love his enemy and love his country, he determined to hate his enemy, Hitler. He did this with good intentions, but the good intentions took him away from Jesus.

In this, then, he ended up in an insideous way, agreeing with Hitler. Bonhoeffer and Hitler had different ideas who their enemy was, but they both agreed that the way to deal with enemies is to destroy them ourselves. They both disagreed with Jesus in this area. And yet, in a way, Bonhoeffer was the worst of the two. Hitler did what he did in ignorance of Jesus, not having commited himself to him. Bonhoeffer counted the cost, made the determination to follow Jesus, and then, when the crisis hit, he determined to love his country more than Jesus.

"He who takes up the plow and turns back is not worthy to follow Me."

"Remember Lot's wife."

Real Church

What is it that we get from church that we cannot get from (1) a small group (fellowship), (2) a good Bible Study (being taught/equipped) and (3) serving (living it) in our communities? All are forms of worship to the Lord, 2/3 is being a part of the body of believers and the other 1/3 is doing what the Lord asked us to do…Go! This question has been on my mind as of late. In two different seasons of my life I have sensed the Lord calling me OUT of churches just as I have sensed He was leading me to them. There have been huge gaps though, in between the exiting church and finding a new one. What are those gaps?? It just dawned on me that I should ask the Lord. But I would love your insight
-Paula Reece

As far as what you were talking about your church. The problem, I think, it considing the "Sunday service" group as "THE church" and all other groups as something other than "real" church. But the Bible says that the "real" church we need to be involved in is a fellowshipping body. Fellowship or koinonia in Greek doesn't mean just talking or encouraging, but meeting each other's physical needs, keeping each other accountable, as well as sharing songs, Scriptures and what we've learned from the Lord and prayer requests and encouraging to keeping on with the Lord. So what I ask is, where IS the "real" church? In a meeting where everyone is observing, but not talking to each other? Or in a small group where we are sharing our needs and burdens and joys and hopes in the Lord? I believe that often a Bible study or accountability group is actually more of a real church than a Sunday meeting. So when Hebrews says, "Do not forsake the gathering together", I think it means one's accountability group, not a big Sunday service.

Where's the Persecution?

Some have asked, "Why aren't we persecuted like we were in the past?"

Persecution is rampant throughout the world-- especially in Muslim countries, China and other places. And persecution should not be limited to martyrdoms-- Jesus described persecution as any type of neglect or act of hatred done due to being connected to Him (luke 6).

Is there persecution in the West? Certainly. There is a university near my house where a professor used to (don't know if he still does) target Christians in his class and holds them up to ridicule throughout the semester. Persecution happens, just like it happens to Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists.

I guess the real question is, "Why aren't I being persecuted?" I think the biblical answer to that is that persecution is related to evangelism. Matthew 10 specifically connects persecution following evangelism, as done as Jesus said. Even so, the more one is involved in evangelism, the more one is persecuted. The more you tell the truth-- even in a gentle, culturally sensisitve way-- the more you will be persecuted.

Why are they being more persecuted in other countries? Because they clearly see what we do not see in our nations-- our belief in Jesus is the antithesis of the moral values and hopes and economic goals of the society we live in. The more we live differently than the world-- like the Amish-- the more we will be ridiculed. So let's be different and tell others how we are different. Then we will be persecuted. For sure.

Are Women Intimidating?

To talk to the other sex is a cross-cultural experience, like talking to someone from another country. We can be attracted to the other person, but we know that they are fundamentally different. I think that this is what God intended all along. For us to understand what it means to love beyond ourselves, we must be attracted to those who are foundationaly unlike ourselves. Sexual attraction and falling in love is the basis for us to understand The Other, the Stranger.

So how does one understand the other sex? By open communication, by talking about the differences, by really listening. My wife and I understood each other much more by reading the book Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus. This is not because the book understands people so well-- in fact, he's somewhat off the target with women-- but because we read it together and used it as a basis to understand each other's experience. From that time we understood how we needed to communicate our own perspective, and how different our thinking was than our partner's. So we've been working on it ever since.

There are many differences between Diane and I in general, and some of them are related to differences in our sex, and some not:

-I tend to think categorically, while she thinks holistically. This means easy retrieval of information for me, but she can make unique connections.

-She uses talking as purging, as a way to process, while I think of talking as just communication. This is why many women (and men) keep talking when it seems there is nothing they are saying, because they are actually thinking aloud. Many men (and women) keep silent until they've finished their processing.

-Women are not more "emotional" than men, they just express it more openly in close relationships.

And like any cultural differences, women and men have different social mores and ethics. This is why many women find men to be "disgusting" or "horrible", because they were taught different ethics by their peers. We tend to learn what is right and wrong as much from our peers as from our parents or authority figures. And since, in our early years, our peers are segregated sexually, then there is a "female" culture and a "male" culture.

The different kinds of thinking come from how we develop differently. Men, during puberty, receive an acid bath in their brain, which severes some of the connections between the sides of the brain. I suspect this is why most men are categorical thinkers and most women holistic.

Christian Cops?

Steve,
Can a christian (some one who is actively seeking Christ, and wants to please him) be a Cop (Constable On Patrol)? If so, what does a christian cop look like. How would he maintain his Christ likeness, while on duty?
Gordon

Of course a Christian can be a police officer. Many cops are. It is difficult to be faithful in that occupation, as many secular occupations, but it is possible.

One of the difficulties is that cops are enforcing a different law than the Law of Christ. Sometimes-- although rarely-- you have to punish people who were only doing what they were doing because they were loving their neighbor. You often have to punish people for disobeying a law apart from Christ's law (such as ticketing a person for not wearing a seat belt).

Another issue is that the way officers are trained to enforce is different than Jesus'. Jesus taught us to love our enemies, and to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of the other. Cops are trained to protect themselves at the cost of the "bad guys". For this reason there are unjust police shootings. These unjust shootings are not so much the fault of the cops as their training. They are trained to attack people who run away from them or who act violently in any way. As Christians, we are taught (although not trained) to accept violence in order not to harm others, or to protect others. Jesus' way of approaching "bad guys" is radically different than enforcement agencies.

But I know that cops can be both faithful Christians and good cops. Actually, I think that a faithful Christian-- who is willing to sacrifice himself for others, who is gentle with everyone, who assists the poor as well as the middle class, who tries to understand the other instead of making an enemy out of them-- makes a better cop than others.I also think that police officers are different than the army. The purpose of the army is to kill and destroy. The purpose of cops is to preserve. I don't think that a faithful Christian can really be a part of a system whose goal is to kill the enemy-- which is just the opposite of Jesus' command. But a faithful Christian can be a part of a preservation system, although they would have to act with a different attitude than is the norm.

What Does It Mean To Love God?

Steve,

What does it mean to truly, Love God? I fear God (though not completely). I have been walking on and off with God for twenty years, and I have never seriously thought about this. How do I love God, with my whole heart, and mind and stregth?

Gordon

It has taken me a long time to reply to this, I'm not sure why.

Biblically, to love God is emotional, but the emotional is only the tip of the iceburg. It is like a marriage-- yes there is intimacy there, but that is only a surface expression for deep communication, trust and support. To be emotional for God is the surface reaction to a deep life in God, which includes:

1. Fear of GodThis is the recognition of who God is, that He is all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, and ultimately has our fate in His hands, whether for good or for bad.

2. Association with God
This is being connected with God in all our lives, understanding our lives to be a reflection of the presence of God.

3. Devotion to God
This is our basic faith in God, willing to connect to God, honor Him and worship Him only, no matter what the cost.

4. Submission to God
This is our willingness to listen to and obey God in every way.

5. Gratefulness to God
We recognize and remember all that God has done for us and we thank Him for His love and action for us.

6. Emotionally attached to God
Based on all the above, we see God as our lover, our intimate, our closest friend, our support when we are in crisis, the healer of our soul, the one we cry to and surrender to.

To say that this love is done with "all your heart, soul, mind, strength" is to say that every part of our existence is oriented to this love of God. We surrender our actions, our thoughts, our emotions, our intellect and our will to God. This love isn't just to be a once-a-week experience, or even a daily one. God is to be our focus at all times, in all places, in all situations.

Worship and War

Hey Steve,

How are you? I am doing well. God is good. At jpusa, Thursday nights, I am part a group called, Discipleship Ministries. At this group we basically sit around in a circle to pray and sing worship songs. Its a very cool seen and I look forward to it. The leaders, of D.M. have ask every one on the group to come with other ideas for worship that we can all do together. For example, a prayer walk. So, my question to you is, what would do with 50 people, who wanted to worship the God of the universe(within a two hour time frame)?

Okay, now for a more serious question, what is the Christians stance on on war and violence? Is it okay to protect some one else? We may have gone over this before(i am not sure).

Gordon


I'm doing okay, but really busy now. Please pray for me that I truly worship God and not just get caught up in busy-ness.

What would I do with 50 people? First of all, I would teach them to recite the Shema (Deut. 6:4-5) and the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) daily.

But that's not really answering your question. I guess, if it was just a one-time thing, I would do a Taize thing-- repetative, worshipful singing leading to silent prayer. For instance, I would teach the song, "speak to me" by Rebecca St. James, sing that for five minutes and then encourage people to listen to the Lord for another ten minutes. For people who are not used to listening to the Lord ten or fifteen minutes is the outermost limit.

As far as war and violence, I'll give you the short answer:
Jesus said, "Love your enemies" He also opposed love and destroying another (so you can't destroy a person and say, "But I loved them in my heart as I was torturing them for my country").

Does this mean you can't protect others? Of course you can. The problem is thinking that destroying another is the only, or even close to the best way of protecting.

Let's look at the war in Iraq. It was started to protect the West against terrorists and against Sadaam's "weapons". Not only was it later discovered that Sadaam wasn't supporting terrorists, nor did he have the weapons we feared, but it is now a rallying cry for Muslims around the world-- another example of the oppression of the West. Thus, violence is shown again to be a bad answer to a bad problem.

This is the same in the personal example. Are you really protecting your family by attacking an attacker in your home? All you are probably doing is killing yourself. But even that is okay, if you do not destroy your enemy. You can keep your enemy at bay, restrain him, even put him unconcious and still love him, even as you can spank your children and love them. So the problem isn't violence (even surgery is violence!), but the intent. Are you intending to destroy-- no matter what the reason-- or are you intending to help. And your actions will demonstrate that.

War is always an attempt to destroy, to kill. No Christian should participate in it. We should participate in prayer, and call God to our defense, Who will do a much better job at defending us than George Bush's strategy could ever do.

Is Trinitarianism Essential?

Steve,

What can you tell me of the history of the doctrine of the trinity? When did the word, trinity, first became part of our vocabulary (christianeese, that is)? Did the early church fathers teach on it? Can it be supported biblically?

Thank you for your time.

Gordon


Ah, Gordon, you open up such cans of worms.

Let's go through it in chronological order.

There are hints in the OT as to the plurality of God, but it is unclear as to whether it is speaking of different persons who are God, or there are a multiple of powerful spirit beings ('gods') that Yahweh is always the head of. I personally believe in the second one. This would explain that the word for "god" is plural, why the "angel of Yahweh" speaks directly as God (because he is a full representative of Yahweh), and the "we" language in the early chapters of Genesis.

In the NT, there are a couple passages that clearly and without qualification call Jesus "God", especially in the book of John. When it says "the Word was God", and "there was nothing made that was not made by him" it seems as clear as possible. The problem I have is that in the first century Moses was also called "god" by many people. So the statement "Moses was God" would be marginally uncontroversial in the first century. But it wouldn't mean that Moses is of the same being as Yahweh. It would mean that he is a powerful spirit being.In the NT, the following is clear about Jesus:
a. Jesus existed before he was born of a virgin.
b. Jesus originally came from heaven-- i.e. was a spirit being.
c. Jesus participated in the creation of the universe.
d. Jesus shares in the power of Yahweh
e. Jesus is submitted completely to the Father's will
f. Jesus shares in the worship and titles of Yahweh

In the NT, the Spirit is given importance in practical matters, but the metaphysical properties of the Spirit just aren't discussed. In Acts 5, the Spirit is mentioned as God, but it isn't clear as to whether he is acting as a full representative or a sharer in the nature of God. The "clearest" Trinitarian text is Matthew 28, which has us being baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But all that is mentioned is the names, not the relationship between them.

After the NT was finished, there was much speculation as to the nature of the Son and the Spirit, especially at the time of Constantine. Greek philosophy, especially Platonism was significant in the Roman Empire at the time (around the early 4th century), and all theology was being relegated to a postscript of Plato. Plato changed everything. Because of him, most people think of the "spirit" as ethreal, instead of an alternative physical; because of him and Aristotle, they think of God in philosophical terms-- omnipresent, the "prime mover", etc-- instead of a person. And the most interesting philosophical problem in Christian theology is the divine nature of Jesus-- a subject which the NT ignored.

Origin and Tertullian paved the way, but it was Arius and Athenatius (sp?) that created the famous debate that would create many heresies and kill many people. Arius was a teacher in a theology school in Alexandria, and he taught that Jesus was "god" in the sense of any of the other pagan gods. That he was a powerful spiritual being, that he was significant in the creation of the world and that he was the full representative of Yahweh, the king of all gods. But, he said, Jesus was NOT of the same nature as Yahweh-- that this isn't what the NT means when it says "god". Arius' bishop was named Alexander and he strongly disagreed. Alexander said that Jesus was fully God and had all the divine characteristics. So he told Arius to stop teaching his heresy. Arius refused.

Because of Arius' refusal to obey his bishop, it became a world argument. Churches all over the world discussed the theological argument and Arius' rebellion. It was said that every butcher and bread maker on the streets were hotly arguing the nature of the Son. Athenatius became the prime charismatic theologian on the other side, and promoted Trinitarianism-- that Jesus had exactly the same nature as the Father, but they were different persons, using language that was created by Tertullian. And so the debate became even hotter, because Athenatius was a popular fiery preacher.

This is where Constantine comes in. He was a believer in paganism that used his army to unite the Roman Empire, and did so by melding his worship of the Sun with Christianity. He changed the Christian worship to the first day of the week ('Sun' day) so the sun worshippers and Christians would worship on the same day. He also promoted a symbol-- called the "Chi Rho", which was a symbol that would both represent Christ and the Rising Sun. In Rome, they promoted Christmas on the same day as an important Sun holiday-- "The Day of the Ascending Sun", on the winter solstice.

Christian unity was a great interest of Constantine, because he wanted to unify the Roman Empire and fully a third of his empire was Christian. So when he saw this debate tearing apart Christian unity, he had to do something about it. So he arranged for the bishops to call a synod about the issue and he arranged for himself to be the moderator of the synod. So it was held in Nyssia, which was only a short distance from where he lived in Constantinople. The debate was as political as well as theological, and dealt with the rebellion of Arius as well as the theology that he promoted.

In the end, Arius was disciplined, not because of his theology, but because of his refusal to obey his bishop. And there is a famous creed that came out of this debate, called the Nyssian Creed.We need to remember that the creed was supposed to unite the dividing church, not take sides. So almost all of the language we would be in agreement with all the theology of Athenatius and of Arius, except one word "esse", which means "essence". Arius would agree that Jesus is by nature divine and that he created the world, but he would disagree that the Son was of the same basic essence or nature of the Father. But this is what the creed stated. The creed was acclaimed by most of the bishops, although many people of the Arian camp disagreed.

This debate did not by any means end with the creed. Depending on which theology was on top, either Arius or Athenatius were exiled at various times over the next 40 years. There were wars fought over this debate.

But I want to make it clear-- the nature of Jesus is not clearly taught in the NT. One can either be Trinitarian or Arian and still hold to the text. I don't believe that one can be Unitarian, since they deny the pre-existence of Jesus, but there is a well respected Bible scholar who came to that conclusion from the text, although I do not find his arguments persuasive. But to demand that one cannot be saved unless we have a Trinitarian understanding of the text is not biblical. Rather, we need to look at this debate as Romans 14 and 15 would have us do-- let us not judge the other party, but hold to our own convictions without destroying the other brother.

What Is Modesty?

What is the biblical standard for modesty? Where do we draw the line in our culture (any culture)? -Gordon

The fact is that there IS no biblical standard, as far as how high can you make hemlines, etc. In some cultures, it is modest for everyone to be topless. In some cultures it is modest only if everyone is covered from their neck to their feet.

There are some principles I think are significant:
a. Modesty means that we don't spend a lot of time or money on our looks. We want to save time and money for the work of the Lord, building up the kingdom, doing good works. (Matt. 6:33; I Timothy 2:9-10)

b. Modesty means that you are not going to dress in such a way to sexually stimulate the opposite sex. That doesn't mean you can't look attractive-- in I cor 14, Paul says that long hair is a woman's "glory"-- the honor she receives from her beauty. This shouldn't, Paul argues, be covered. But to stir up sexuality in another person is to lead them into sin-- and Jesus had some pretty strong language for those who cause others to stumble (Matt 18)

Drugs and the Bible

The bible, condemns the everyday use of any kind of drugs, potions, or spells, as well as poisoning or witchcraft. It's called pharmakeia in the original text and can be found in Galatians 5:19-21. So, as followers of Christ, should we not take prescription drugs? -Gordon

The word "pharmekeia" is one of the best examples of a thing called "root fallacy" in linguistics. It is the assumption that because a word means something later in it's history that we should import that meaning to an earlier period. It is certainly true that the term "pharmekeia" is the root of our word "pharmecuticals" today as well as "pharmacy". It is also true that when the word was used in the Bible that it meant "sorcery" and that some sorcerers used drugs at that time.

But this does not mean that modern drug use is necessarily sorcery. In between ancient sorcery and modern legal drug use was a time of experimentation with chemicals that is now known as alchemy, which came from ancient sorcery, but was really early chemistry. The difference between ancient "pharekeia" and modern legal drugs are many:
a. There is no worship of other gods
b. There is no attempt to control spirits
c. The drugs today are used to improve humanity's lot, not control them (love potions, curses, etc)

In fact, Paul commanded Timothy to "take a little wine for his stomach". Wine was the most common medicine in ancient times, and is actually a human-made chemical. Does this mean that all drugs, even all legal drugs, are positive? No, of course not. We need to make a determination as to whether the drugs will make us more or less righteous, more or less obedient to the Lord. If they make us more righteous, more obedient, then I might say that we should take these drugs. If they make us less righteous, less obedient, then we should NOT take these drugs, no matter what other benefit they give to us.

Is Baptism Important?

How important is being baptized? Is it just a symbolic jester of a persons new life in Christ, or is there more to it? I overheard some say that we are baptized so that our sins are washed away. The word does say, that we are to 'repent and be baptized'. Also, who can baptize? Can any born again believer baptize someone? Or, does it have to be someone official (a priest or a pastor)? -Gordon

In order to understand baptism, we have to understand its history.

John the Baptist was the first to baptize, and we can understand much about why he baptized if we look at his message and where he was baptizing. His message was that God was coming soon and was going to destroy most of Israel because they were sinful and unrepentant. In kingdom lingo, that means that God was establishing his kingdom on earth, but most of Judea-- most Jews-- weren't citizens and so they couldn't go in. So John established a "baptism of repentance"-- a baptism which was a statement that the person was repenting of their sins and trying to make it right with God so they could be a part-- be a citizen-- of God's kingdom.

But why did John baptize at the Jordan? It was to remind those being baptized of another "baptism"-- the crossing of the Jordan river, and it's predecessor, the crossing of the Red Sea. Baptism, ultimately, is a re-enactment of the crossing of those two bodies of water, as indicated in I Corinthians 10:2. The crossing of a body of water by God's hand was the indication to the people that they were entering God's kingdom by His power, His grace.

There is one other important symbol in baptism-- the water itself. It isn't just a pool or a sprinkling, but it is a body of water with a spirit-- a spirit that might choose to attack you or kill you, as the ancient Hebrews thought of seas or wide rivers-- they were dangerous gods of death. So to cross the Red Sea, to cross the Jordan, or to cross the flood waters, as Noah did (see I Peter 3:20-21) is to die to your old self, your old life, your old society, and to be a part of God's kingdom exclusively, never to return.

So what is baptism? It is a display of your commitment, the sign of your citizenship in the kingdom of God through the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is the same as new citizens of the U.S. raising their right hands and making a pledge to the U.S. Can one become a citizen of the U.S. without raising their hands and pledging? Maybe, but everyone does it. It is the way it is done. So is baptism necessary for salvation? Well, let's just say that the NT doesn't say anything about "praying to Jesus as your savior", but it does talk about baptism. Anyone who becomes a citizen of God's kingdom repents and is baptized.

So who can baptize? Really, anyone who is already a citizen. Jesus commanded his disciples-- all of them-- to baptize (Matthew 28:19-20). But who can be baptized? Those who are ready to declare that Jesus is their king and Lord, that they commit themselves to him for all of their lives, that they will obey him in all that they know and that they will commit themselves to God's people. If they declare this pledge, they are ready to be baptized.

Does baptism have to be done? Well, the first ancient manual to talk about this says that it should be done in a river or stream, but if it can't be done that way, water should be poured. Sprinkling didn't start until babies were baptized, of which the Bible says less than nothing-- baptism is for those ready to commit to the pledge. Immersion is good, but it is really based on a misunderstanding of the word "baptidzo", which means "to completely soak". Pouring is good enough, as long as the person really gets good and wet. I don't recommend sprinkling.

In Anawim, the mode of baptism is to step in a tub of water, representing the river of death, and pouring the water over them, representing the Holy Spirit. We do this in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Then they step out of the water on the other side, representing the new life they are in. At that point, we lay hands on and pray for the new believer and cast out any Satanic spirits.

Steve

Universal Morality?

I think that, just like "happy", "funny" and "boring", the words "good" and "evil" have no meaning outside the mind of a human subject. -Unterkind

Yet these words do have meaning to my wife and my friends when we use them to each other. We are in agreement to the meaning because the meanings are in community, not just personal.

It seems to me that all concepts of "good" and "evil" have to do with the community that one is a part of -- even religious points of view have this. There is no "good" or "evil" that an individual has not in relation to other beings. Some subjects might have only to do with ourselves-- masturbation, use of drugs, suicide-- but ultimatly the arguments either for or against each issue, no matter how "personal" they are will have to do with our relations to others-- e.g. maturbation in relation to adultery, drug use in relation to careless harm of others, suicide in relation to how we grieve others.

If we did not live in community, there would BE no good or evil. If we didn't have species and a human society and nature then there would be no reason for good or evil. But the fact is, there is, and so every human being has to deal with it.

And good and evil-- whether religious or otherwise-- is never universal, but are basic principles of not doing harm within a context. The concept "do not kill" is an excellent example. For most people, that principle has many exceptions. We kill microscopic organisms every time we breathe, thus we kill and think nothing of it. Most of us eat meat and most of us feel that it is okay to kill another human if they are attacking us. A few of us feel that killing innocent people in war is okay as long as the objective is worth it. On the other hand, there are vegetarians who do not want to kill any animal. There are some who belong to religious communities who are commanded by God not to kill another human being, no matter what the cause. Others, in their communities, hold to opposing any killing of an innocent. Others, such as the jainists, attempt to stop any killing of any life, so much so that they wear masks so as to not accidently swallow an insect. The basic concept of limitation of harming another life is always there, but the application of this principle is based on the community.

We get confused nowadays about morality because we are at a conflux of all societies-- and thus, all moralities-- in a way that humanity has never been before. It seems so individual when every person you approach has a different point of view on morality. But this is just the conflict that comes in any cross-cultural situation. The cross-cultural is becoming a part of our life now as we are no longer one society, but many, all joined together, forced to understand each other and to believe new things in our new context.

Ultimately, the war in Iraq-- and all modern wars-- are culture wars, morality wars. Survival will not be the strongest, but will be the moral point of view that will be most inclusive, the least harming to others. This is why both the American and the jihadist points of view will be torn down, eventually. An old morality will succeed, that will allow both Muslims and Americans to live in peace together, that does not require killing another for disagreeing with them will be more successful than the points of view that causes our current wars.

Now, those of you who are Christians reading this blog might be saying, "Is Steve a situational ethicist? How can that be Christian?" No, I do not believe in situational ethics. I believe that we are all a part of a society, and that our morality should reflect the society we are a part of. If you are a Muslim, then you have a very strict morality to live by: hospitality, care for fellow Muslims, commitment in marriage, no alcohol, etc. If the edges of Muslim morality is wearing down, it is because of the influence of other societies that are trying to join it (For instance, Osama Bin Ladin is actually a mix between Islam and Marxism, in complete defiance to orthodox Islam). If one is a strict "American" then there is a moral point of view one holds, including patriotism and a certain amount of pluralism.

If you are a Christian, then the society you are supposed to belong to is the kingdom of God-- the kingdom of Jesus. This is different than the kingdom of Moses (ruled by the Law) or the kingdom of David or the kingdom of the ancient Hebrew priests. Jesus determines our morality, our "good" and "evil". In that we sin against Him, we are showing that we are still creatures of this world, of our societies that we have not fully renounced.

It is Jesus' morality, however, that is most successful and will ultimately win over the world. "Love your enemies" -- do good to everyone, no matter what they do to you
"Forgive the repentant"-- always welcome to your group those who repent of their sin
"Love God"-- The community of God always does what is right before God, worshipping and honoring Him
"Love your neighbor"-- the community of God always supports those in the community, not allowing them to come to harm

And more. Jesus will win, perhaps only when he returns, but His is the morality that will succeed.

Steve K

Disciplining Children

I caused a controversy in the staunchly conservative Anabaptist Seeker's yahoo email group by suggesting that striking children is not an appropriate form of discipline for believers in nonviolence, and I was quoted Proverbs which counsels not sparing the rod.I countered that that was an Old Testament scripture that was no more binding on Christians than Jewish dietary laws, and was told that since Proverbs is wisdom literature and not the law it is eternally authoritative, like the New Testament. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I feel certain that beating up children is not the appropraite way for pacifists to treat their children. -Jerry C

It seems to me that this is a place where the "non-violence" label as a virtue gets us in trouble. If non-violence is a Jesus-promoted virtue (which I deny) then certainly spanking would be wrong. But so would surgery, an inherently violent, and often life-threatening action.
I agree that pulling verses out of Proverbs willy-nilly is a bad idea, especially when it speaks of punishment. After all, it also says that the rod is appropriate for "fools" (e.g. Prov. 26:3). I can just see "corporal punishment advocates for Jesus" going down the street, hitting the developmentally disabled with a stick in "literal fulfillment" of this verse....

However, in the NT it does command fathers to "bring up children in the discipline and righteousness of the Lord." And such discipline that fathers give, as referred to in Hebrews 12 is "scourging". Obviously, this is symbolic, but I think that we can take Heb 12 to be a type of the discipline parents should give children.

First of all, if a child does something evil, they should be taught what is good. Secondly, if they continue to do that evil, they should be punished and it should be unpleasant. Thirdly, they should be assured that even if it doesn't feel like it, the discipline is done out of love for the child, not because of anger or a lack of control on the part of the parent.

I have had to apologize to my children for punishing them out of anger, and so doing it inappropriately. There are occasions, however rare, that I do spank my children-- never to harm them, but to communicate to them the seriousness of the offense. I communicate my desire to love them and I always restore relationship as soon as they are ready.

If a parent choses not to spank their child, I think that's great to have those ideals. But what I find is most significant for disciplining my children is to have a variety of diciplining techniques (time outs, lecturing, warning, light pat on the wrist, spanking, etc) so the measure of discipline can equal the action done. One punishment for every action communicates that every wrong we do is equal, no matter what our intent or knowledge or how much it harms another.


Steve K.

How to Avoid the Same Sin

Someone asked me a question the other day, "how do I avoid repeated sin?" I want to answer this in an addiction context. Most repeated sin is addition of one sort or another. It could just be a thinking disorder (I feel bad, therefore I need this sin), but more than likely it is a compulsion to perform an act that we think we cannot help.

So how do we avoid our addictions?

1. Recognize that giving in to this sin displays a sense that our needs are not being met.
This sense could be true, or might not be. But sin never fulfills our need-- it only covers it up and then we have a worse problem to deal with. But this doesn't mean that the need isn't real. We probably have a lack that we are not dealing with, but our bodies are re-directing us to another source that doesn't really meet the need. Our bodies are stupid, we should be smarter than them. So we should analyze ourselves-- what is wrong, what is lacking, how can we fulfill these needs in a godly way?

2. Recognize that giving in to this sin, we are allowing our sense of need be more important than God or others
To give in to repeated sin is simply one thing-- selfishness. Even though we are told how much our sin hurts others and our relationship with God, we do it anyway. This is the ultimate selfish act-- we are only focusing on ourselves instead of what we should be focusing on-- the God who loves us and gives us our very life and the people around us we are supposed to be serving.

3. Giving into the sin is a result of a thought disorder
Thinking that the sin will fulfill our needs is a disorder in our thinking that ultimately destroys us. How do we reform our mind? How can we transform our thinking, which we seem to have so little control over? There are many ways, but here's a few:
a. Read the word daily, especially the gospels and the psalms.
b. BEFORE you read the word, do some exercise. This "stirs up" your brain neurons, and allows new thinking to take place.
c. Meditate on your life and what God wants of you. Don't allow yourself to complain or have any selfish thoughts! Focus on God's plan and God's will. Journal it, if you can, so you can read it later.
d. Pray for God's deliverance and Spirit daily, without exception.
e. Throw yourself so much into God's plan for your life that you don't have room to think about your misery.

4. Remember at all times-- God didn't make us Christians in this age to have our needs met, but to suffer!
Jesus told us to rejoice in the suffering and persecution we experience for Him, because it is an indication of our salvation. We've got to stop the pity parties we allow ourselves to have and recognize that if our needs aren't being met by doing God's will, then we must be doing something RIGHT! The more we allow ourselves to sacrifice for the sake of others and our own humility, the more God will reward us in the end. So let's not look for the "quick out" of our troubles. Let's be glad we have the troubles we experience.

Divisions and the Spirit

If the Spirit is not divided against itself, then why are there so many denominations? -Gordon

A denomination does not mean a division in the Spirit. Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement once about how to deal with fallen recruits and so had to begin different ministries. Does that mean that the Spirit was divided? No, it meant that the Spirit wanted to work differently with each of them. Paul was going to the "front lines" in a severe ministry, and weak believers just couldn't do that ministry. It would have been wrong for Paul to compromise his ministry for the sake of someone who wasn't ready to participate in it. But should Barnabas have listened to Paul? No, his task in the Spirit is to bring up the weak and encourage them. Because of Barnabas, John Mark became the strong disciple he turned into. Different ministries were necessary at that point.

Even so, the denominations. God allowed the divisions so that the church might be strong in different areas. If it weren't for the minority Pentecostal movement, there would not have been the powerful move of the Spirit over the last hundred years. If it weren't for Luther, there wouldn't have been such an emphasis on the Bible for the last four hundred years. If it weren't for the Mennonites and Moravians, there wouldn't have been Protestant Christian communities. God established these divisions to allow the Spirit more movement to work.

Of course, sometimes divisions turn ugly and there is backbiting, gossiping and every other kind of terrible disunity. God did not cause that, but people's self-centeredness and narrow-mindedness did. Disagreements need to be guided by Galatians 5-- not of the works of the flesh, but of the fruit of the Spirit. Only then will division and denominations agree to go in different ways, but still remain unified in the Spirit.

Can We Lose Our Salvation?

Can we lose our salvation?
This one is easy-- the Bible says you can.
"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." Hebrews 6:4-6

For if we continue sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.Hebrews 10:26-31

Hebrews 6 describes a Christian-- one who has tasted of the heavenly gift and has shared in the Holy Spirit-- and then falls away (which means no longer believes) then they cannot be turned back to repentance again.
Hebrews 10 talks about a believer who refuses to repent from their sin and the terrible punishment they will receive.

Theologically, this is also easy to understand. The basic requirement for receiving salvation is faith, right? Then if you no longer have faith, even if you once did, then you no longer have the salvation. Jesus uses a number of descriptions of those who refuse to obey Him or who refuse to believe in him and they will be burned in fire, cast out of the kingdom. This isn't just a temporary punishment, but his descriptions of eternal hell. You can look it up-- John 15:6; Matthew 7:21-27; John 3:36.

The reasons many say that there is no possibility of losing one salvation is twofold:
a. Theologically, people misunderstand the idea of predestination. Paul speaks of a church being predestined before God. But Paul is speaking of a group of people, not each one individually. It was predestined-- prophesied, in fact-- that the Gentiles would be saved. It was predestined that people of every nation would enter as citizens of God's kingdom. But Paul never said to Timothy, "You are predestined, nothing you say or do will send you to hell." Predestination is the salvation of a remnant, not of an individual.

b. Biblically, people misunderstand the passages of assurance. For instance, Romans 8, where Paul says, "Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ." But Paul was not speaking of our refusal to accept that love, to accept the salvation He is offering us. He was speaking of angelic powers-- demons-- and sufferings that people would claim that we do not have God's salvation if we suffer like that. Well, Paul says that sufferings or demonic forces cannot put a block between us and God. That is true. But if we refuse God's gift of obedience, His gift of the Holy Spirit, then He will not force us to accept salvation, even if we wanted it earlier in our lives.

Again, the argument against loss of salvation is picking up certain Scriptures, misunderstanding them, and ignoring others.

Is God the Author of Sin?

So, is God the author of sin? -Gordon


I must answer with Paul-- Certainly not! We need to see the source of the question before it is answered. People assume that since God is sovereign, that He is in control of all things. This is certainly not true. If it were, then one must do some amazing metaphysical hopping in order to say that God is not in control of every sin, every disaster, every temptation. But an all-controlling force is not the description of God in the Bible. Rather He is a king who has great power, but puts limits on his own power, in order to share his sovereignty-- his rule-- with others. And in that sharing, others, in their inadequate sense of justice and mercy, created sin in disobedience to God because sin seems more "moral" than God. At least, that was the beginning of sin. Nowadays it is cool to be "bad" or "evil" and to "break moral standards" especially if they seem arbitrary. But sin didn't begin as a way to be evil. It began as a way to be more moral than God allowed us to be.

We aren't given the full story of what happened to Satan before Genesis 1 which caused him to rebel against God and to tempt Adam and Eve. We do know, however, that God allowed many angels to rule over the earth for a period of time. They were partners in His creation. And we know that many of them were disgusted that God gave his rule over the earth to humanity. So they wanted to undermine humanity, and so they do evil things to humanity, like tempting them to rebel against God. In this way, they suppose, God must destroy them and re-establish angelic rule over the earth. But God does not change His mind once He's made a promise, and so even though humanity is a sinful, rebellious race, yet God still allows humanity to rule, planning for redemption instead of destruction.

All this is to say that God is only good and is actually more good than any of us could imagine. He is not, nor could ever be the author of sin. James says, "God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone (to do evil)." So how could God have created sin? God did, however, give freedom for some of his creations to create. He gave restrictions, but He did not, nor does He, absolutely control. The fact that the world is sinful but we have a perfectly good God is the best proof of free will. This world is NOT how God wants it. And that is because He surrendered some of his control to us. Many have accused Him of being foolish in that way. I just figure that He has a better plan.

Romans 4

Steve,

What is Romans ch 4, talking about. And what can we learn from it?

Gordon

You don't ever give me the easy ones do you?

First of all, the main point of the body of Romans is a defense of Paul's ministry of giving the gospel to the Gentiles without them needing to become Jews first. In the first part he talks about how sinful gentiles are, and then how sinful Jews are. Then he says that the solution-- how we get connected to God-- is by faith (by committing ourselves to God's kingship through Jesus.).

The question Paul is dealing with in Romans 4 is, "So you are saying that the Law is pointless? That we never needed the Law in the first place?" Paul replies, "I'm not getting rid of the Law-- instead, I am affirming what the Law itself taught!"

So he talks about Abraham, one of the central saints in the Law, about how he was made right before God through faith, and that before he was circumcised. Thus, Paul was saying, Abraham was exactly in the same place as modern Gentiles are-- he wasn't a "Jew" in the religious sense, and he was saved by his commitment to God's kingship.

Then Paul goes on to say that this is exactly how everyone is saved, whether Jew or Gentile, and that this was the point of the Law to begin with.

How Are Catholics Wrong?

How do you know that Catholicism is wrong? I ask because until the age of 18 I was not very religious but I tended to be more protestant in belief, but for the last 3 years I have been in the Catholic Church. I have had several fall outs, but I always seem to return. This is very confusing for me and my biggest fear is going to hell because of all this confusion amongst Christians as to who is correct in their teachings. I have several books by Catholics that seem to prove to me by using scripture and history that Catholicism is the original and true branch of Christianity, but a small part of me tends to be skeptical of this. I go through phases of faith, for a few months my faith will be so strong I seriously consider joining the Catholic priesthood, but then at other times my faith is weak and I start to doubt Catholic teachings. I know you are a pastor, so I figure your knowledge on this subject could help to steer me in the right direction. Thank you,
God Bless,Mark


Thanks for putting your trust in me on this subject, although I doubt that just because I'm a pastor that I would necessarily be correct on the subject.
I never asked the question, "Is Catholicism wrong" in my search for God. Rather, I wanted to know in what way Jesus was right. My focus has never been this denomination or that, and even though I did choose a denomination for myself, it is not because I thought that all the other denominations are "wrong". There are some things about the Catholic beliefs that I find problematic-- Maryism, the focus on the Pope as the leader of the visible church, especially-- and so I couldn't openly join that church myself. However, some of the greatest saints that have ever lived, and some that are still alive, were and are part of the Catholic church. Jesus is clearly active in that church, even if I find some of the leadership to be questionable.
My point is, I guess, is that Jesus isn't limited to a particular church. I have talked to a number of our brothers and sisters in the Orthodox tradition, and they have a very good way of seeing the churches-- that each church is a manifestation of the Spirit of God, and we don't either want to exclude one, nor hold one up as greater than the others.
Does this mean that there is no such thing as right or wrong doctrine? Yes, of course there is. We should always be comparing what we believe to what Jesus taught to see if it is accurate with the only Teacher who spoke all the Truth. And the Spirit is still in the process of teaching me what is true and what I need to avoid. But I trust that the Spirit is doing the same in the hearts of those who truly trust in Him, no matter what visible church they are a part of.
There are many in each visible church who are not trusting in God and the Spirit as well. And we need to avoid those folks, especially when they are in leadership in the churches. But I don't want to limit God's work in my life by denying his word to me through a Catholic or a Protestant or an Orthodox or a Conservative or a Liberal or whatever church they are a part of. I want to hear what God has to speak to me, no matter which vessel He chooses to use, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
I hope that makes sense.
Steve K.

Suffering and Salvation

Hey Steve,
It was good to talk to you last night(as always). Would you please expound on what you were saying about how we, as Christians are supposed to suffer.
Gordon

As I mentioned, the central passage I'm basing this on is Romans 8:17. The context of Romans is how the Gentiles are saved, equal to Jews, and all throughout it, Paul speaks about faith. But he mentions suffering at significant junctures, such as Romans 5:1-5, right in the midst of his discussion about how Jesus died for our sins. Then, in 8:17, in discussing how we know we are children of God through the confirmation of the Spirit within us, he says "we have received the inheritance, IF we have joined in his (Jesus') sufferings" We don't receive salvation if we do not participate in Jesus sufferings.

This agrees with what Jesus himself said. Jesus said that we would be his disciple only if we "take up your cross". He said that we would only obtain eternal life if we lose our lives. He said that we would obtain many blessings with following Jesus, but with them persecutions. The beatitudes are all about the suffering receiving God's blessing, while others who received only comfort in this life would get nothing.

So it seems to me that obtaining salvation is not just about believing the right thing or about acting the right way-- although these things are essential. But an essential ingredient is that we must also suffer for the gospel. According to Peter, it does us no good to suffer for what evil things we've done-- that's just justice. But we must go the extra step of suffering for Jesus and the gospel, and then we will obtain salvation.

What kind of suffering? There's many kinds described in Scripture:
-We could be persecuted for standing with Christ
-We could surrender all our possessions for the kingdom
-We could do what we must in Christ, even if it means our family or friends reject us
-We could preach the gospel in a threatening environment
- We could live a life of sacrifice for others, always giving, always surrendering, always looking for the loving thing to do, even if it is not best for ourselves or for our family
-We could surrender our inheritance so we could receive it in Jesus
-We could support and stand with those who are rejected for Jesus' sake, even if we get tarred with the same brush
We can tear out a part of ourselves to avoid sin

And more and more. The opportunities to suffer abound. But if we live a life avoiding suffering, then we spend our lives avoiding what Jesus could give to us. God doesn't give salvation to anyone who asks for it. They must need it first.

Jesus' Miracles

Calvin wrote:Why, if Jesus could turn water into wine, didn't he do things that were more relevant? If he was the son of God, and he had those powers, you wouldn't perform magic at your friends wedding, you would stop people from starving. Now I know he did that thing on the mountain, with the fish and the loaves of bread, but him organizing that meeting was the least he could do to lay out some catering. I think Jesus would agree with your main point: that the water to wine miracle wasn't relavant. I think that's why he refused to do it at first, but his mother manipulated him into it. As humans, we all get caught in social situations, doing what we don't think is appropriate.Jesus spent most of his time meeting the needs of the people around him, especially those who displayed great faith in God. He was making a point. God will grant deliverance, not for the whole world, but for those who live out their sincere faith in Him-- others need not apply. Jesus worked on a one-on-one basis. He healed the sick, one by one, and so saw each individual and their needs, and met each person at their place of need.As a movement of Jesus, Christians are supposed to do the same. The third century Romans were impressed at how the Christians met so many more needs than the government could, and so they were gathering more followers. If only the church today would meet the heart of the needs of people, through the power of God, rather than arguing about theology and getting involved in politics then the church might go back to how it was originally.Steve K
.

Discussion on Inclusion, continued

Mr. Kimes,

Well said on most points. Thank you for your response.

I agree with your studied approach to Muslims, by using the Qu'ran to point them to the Bible and from there to Christ. I do, however, disagree with your view that they are believing in the same God. Nowhere, to my knowledge, does the God of Israel (literal or spiritual) refer to Himself as Allah. That was Mohammed's invention. Thus, I can't see any real harmony between the Qu'ran and the Bible once a person has been brought to a true knowledge of the faith. However, if an ex-Muslim were to validate his conversion by confessing Christ as Lord and God truly come in the flesh and resurrected from death to life, I might be persuaded that they "got it".

Regarding dangers in any denomination: how true, since a denomination is a human invention and has no power to save or preserve us. You refer to many dangers, so I'm interested in knowing what particular dangers you are speaking of regarding the Anabaptists. That is, outside of the perfectly natural human tendency toward self-righteousness, separation from the world to the point we are ineffective, and the ever threatening bitter root of rivalry.

What I seek in any fellowship are these principles:

1. Biblical standards that are adhered to, not just mouthed.
2. Authority, leadership, and personal discipline based on the New Testament in whole
3. Gathering together for mutual edification, knowledge and reproof
4. True subservience to God and lack of personal ambition
5. Prayerfulness and irreproachable lifestyles
6. Preaching of God's Word, not man's philosophy

I'm glad to know you don't waste God's time protesting sectarian things of a political or governmental nature. I disagree that Jesus' cleansing of the temple is a proper analogy. It was because his Father's house was being defiled, not a principle being disagreed with.

You give Roman Catholics much more latitude in their religious practice than the Bible does. I believe that the Catholic church is as corrupt, paganistic and worldly as any man made religion could be. As long as a person prays to Mary, confesses to a priest (believing they alone give absolution), worships idols in the form of saints, prays repetitious prayers (rosary beads) and believes the pope is a valid substitute for Christ on earth they are damned (Rev 21:8) and we, as Christians are not to associate with such (1 Cor 5:11).

Again, I am not trying to be contentious with you. I agree with most of what you do, but I draw the line when it comes to opening my arms for anyone who bears a resemblance to a Christian. They either believe solely in Christ for salvation and live a life that reflects that.....or they don't.

Thanks again for your response. It's much appreciated. I believe you are absolutely correct that many will be disappointed in "that day" when Christ tells them he doesn't know them because they simply neglected His other commandments. I sincerely believe we must lose our lives in order to find them, as Christ said. I just don't want to lose my salvation as well by not being vigilant against the snares we are warned about.

In Christ, blessing and truth be with you.

SF


Thank you again for your reply.

As far as the issue with Allah, linguistic research has determined that "Allah" is just the Arabic form of the Hebrew word "Eloyah", one of the common names for Yahweh used in the Hebrew Bible. Certainly, "Allah" was used long before Muhammad. And also, we need to look at not just the root of a word, but how it is used. For the majority of Muslims in the world, "Allah" means a personal being who is spirit, omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate and who takes action in our world. Since this is our definition of God as well, then there should be no argument that "Allah" is the same God, even if we disagree about the root of the word.

The main disagreement we have with the Muslims is not who God is, but how he is known to us and how we can be right before Him. We should stick to the main subject, instead of getting off on tangents-- the souls of Muslims depend on it.

As far as Catholics go, many of their practices are Biblical, such as confession to a priest-- John 20:23 and James 5. They believe that a believer, even when dead, are still in fellowship with the believers on earth, and "praying" to them is nothing more than asking another believer to pray for them. I would agree that worship of Mary and statues is idolatry, but most Catholics would say that there is no worship going on there. And, in fact, the "Hail Mary" prayer is made up of passages from Scripture about Mary.

It says no where in Scripture that discussing things with false teachers is a sin before God. So there is nothing wrong with having discussions with them and understanding their point of view. However, it does say that those who judge with a wrong judgment-- that not based on God's word-- will be judged. We are supposed to reproof believers, as you say, but if we are judging based on a misunderstanding of someone else's perspective, or judging based on principles that are not found in Scripture, then we are the ones in danger of going to hell.

The danger to the Anabaptists are twofold, in accordance with the two groups that the Anabaptists have divided into. The first is what I mentioned above-- that of judging other groups as going to hell because they do not agree with their personal interpretation of Scripture, when the other groups are just as sincere in following Jesus as they, just in a different way. Many conservative Anabaptist groups go this way, and I pray that the Lord would deliver many of them from false judging, for I do not want to see my brothers and sisters going to hell for separating themselves from their fellow believers.

The danger to the other main Anabaptist group is the opposite one: welcoming in their midst those who teach false doctrine, especially the doctrine of plurality. The church is supposed to have a basic code of ethics and discipline and reproof, as you mentioned. We cannot accept as a part of the church anyone who says the right words. While we cannot discipline without clear knowledge of wrong-doing, we also cannot ignore the sins done, as if they were not sins at all. Many Anabaptists are accepting homosexuals and others in sexual sin as members of the church. And this is corrupting the church.

Now, I accept everyone in my church. But I do not call them all members or believers. I have homosexuals and drunkards and drug users and profane people in my church. They all come. But they are not ready to be a member because they do not live in accordance with following Jesus. I am working, as an evangelist and discipler, to bring them to that place. And many of them have worked with the Spirit of God to become a true follower of Jesus. But I recognize that this is a process, not always an instant transformation, and I am patient enough to wait and see that transformation happen.

My main point was not that the Anabaptists are going to hell. Rather, it is that most fellowships have those within them who are following Jesus within that context. And they all have those who follow the letter of their cultural paradigm, but do not have the truth of the power of the Spirit and the gospel. The Anabaptist are no different. There is NO "pure" church on earth, because the flesh enters into every human organization. And the longer a spirit-filled organization lasts, the less spirit and the more flesh invades that organization. But we can still see the Spirit in the most flesh-filled church organization-- God always seems to leave a witness. So I refuse to write off anyone, but hope and expect the Spirit to work in some.

May the Lord bless you with grace and peace.

Steve K

Evolution in Public Schools

In my opinion, evolution must be taught as truth in the classroom. The public school system is there to teach, not the truth, but the sigificant cultural aspects that assists one to live and function in our society. If we send our children to public school, we are saying that it is a priority that they fit in and be adjusted to our society.Evolution is an essential part of the worldview accepted by our society. It would be wrong for the public school system to teach it as anything less than the truth, because it is the culturally accepted truth, and a major foundational truth by which our culture understands the world around it.As Christians, we have a minority viewpoint. We may take an alternative viewpoint on the origin of creation and humanity. We may take an alternative viewpoint on ethics. We may take an alternative viewpoint on metaphysics. But we must recognize and teach our children that it is an alternative viewpoint. We must be able to defend our viewpoint, and maintain our dissent despite the majority viewpoint. If we do not want our children to learn the majority viewpoint, then we have to choice to not send them to public school. We can send them to private school, or homeschool, in order to teach our worldview. And if we want our children to maintain our alternative worldview, then my opinion is that we must do so outside the public school system. Then we can teach evolution from our viewpoint. But if we refuse to do so, let's not expect the public school system to teach a minority viewpoint.

Studying The Bible

There are so many different studys, What works for some of you, I would really like to understand all aspects of the bible Melinda

The most important thing is that you don't stop.
The Bible has 66 books that were written more than two thousand years ago and there is two thousand five hundred years of interpretation of it. It was written in the context of a culture and religion that is different than anything we know of today, although there are some similarities.
To understand the Bible is one of the most complex tasks anyone could ask of a normal follower of Jesus. Yet it is still our responsibility.
The most important thing I have found in Bible study is to read and listen to people who not only share their points of view, but others as well. In this way, you have a better chance of having a more balanced point of view on Scripture, and a better opportunity to allow the Spirit to tell you the truth of what you are reading.
The task of understanding Scripture is so complex that it takes a lifetime to do it. So don't ever be satisfied that you "know" the word. Always be studying, always be working on it, and you will always be amazed at God's truth.
Steve K.

Questions About Inclusion

In a message dated 1/4/2007 2:04:40 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, sfoltz@firstam.com writes:
Dear Mr. Kimes,

I stumbled onto your website while investigating the Mennonite faith, which resulted from my discontent with most churches I have visited in this area (Portland, OR). I am a returned prodigal after many years and am in agreement with your philosophy and theological understanding regarding what should be most important in our lives. I also find the Mennonite confession to be very much in tune with what I expect and hope to find in a fellowship of believers.

However, your website (http://anawim.or.us.mennonite.net) raises some perplexing concerns for me.

First, I agree that the Muslim people are literally hated by most professing Christians (which means they aren't). However, I would not go so far as to call any Muslim a brother or to even insinuate that they are in an acceptable religion, which is what your Apology to Muslims seems to do. I'm curious if you are aware of this implication and, if so, how you justify it.

Second, you seem very ecumenical in your willingness to fellowship with Roman Catholics, a religion of idolatry and many other falsehoods. I believe Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and even most "churched" Protestants need real salvation as much as any unpreached heathen in the deepest jungles or deserts.

Third, and last, I sense an active affiliation with anti-war protests and movements, which, for me, are a distraction to be avoided as are politics.

So, in conclusion, I confess I was inspired and inclined toward your take on a Christian's duties to Christ, until these anomalies surfaced. They simply run counter to all your other stated beliefs, in my understanding of the Gospel of Christ Jesus.

I'm afraid this happens far too frequently for me; I get excited about finding a kindred person or group and then I run across a held belief that conflicts with other things they purport to believe in. Or I discover a practice that is unbiblical or patently false. In your case, perhaps you are misunderstood from my perspective. if so, I'd appreciate a thoughtful response.

May God bless your efforts, keep you from idols and from going astray.

Respectfully yours in Christ,
Steve Foltz
Thanks for your considered response to our website.

Allow me to explain certain things:

A. As far as Muslims go, I firmly believe that they believe in the same God that Christians do, however they do not know the correct approach to God. The only way to God is through following Jesus, which the vast majority of them do not do. A few, very few, actually do commit themselves to Jesus, and when Jesus and Muhammad disagree, they remain with Jesus. These Muslims make the statement, "Allah is our God and Jesus is the Messiah". They remain in mosques as a witness to other Muslims. Even so, my letter is primarily evangelistic in nature. I have worked with Muslims in the past and a direct call for them to believe in Jesus just doesn't work. But helping them understand that we are not in opposition to them, but fellow seekers of God, and then speaking to them about how the Qu'ran actually affirms the Messiahship of Jesus is a positive way of approaching them. I placed this letter on my website to show that Christians who participate in persecuting anyone are not real Christians.

B. While there is much that is dangerous in every denomination-- including the Mennonites-- there is also the possibility of following Jesus. This is clearly shown in the Catholic church which has many faithful believers of Jesus in it. There are many protestant groups that I consider dangerous, but I have met faithful believers in those churches as well. My point is not to speak against every minor difference of doctrine, but to coax people into a biblical understanding of following Jesus. And to do this, I will associate with Catholics, pentecostals-- whoever-- as long as they are following Jesus in as much as they can.

C. I personally do not participate in protests, although I see nothing wrong with that. Jesus' casting out of the moneychangers was basically a protest against the idolatrous leadership of the priests of the temple. There is a time for this. However, I believe that as followers of Jesus, our main issue is to win over others who claim Jesus, but are not following Him. This is my primary job. And it will not be accomplished through argument or bitter speech-- I have tried that route, and I gained no success. But after letting people know I am on their side, and then speaking the word of the gospel to them-- that works quite well.

The goal is to have communities of Jesus that actually represent Jesus. And I am hoping that my ministry is one step toward reaching that goal.

Thanks again,
Steve K