A woman from Portland is seriously considering a coalition of churches in the area to assist the homeless. She didn't have many practical ideas, so this is my essay in response to her:
The heart of compassion in the United States sees the plight of the homeless. They know that God hears their cries, and feel that God is calling them to accomplish a work to assist these lowest of low, the poor and needy. What can we do? So many Christians have done so many works among the homeless, but the problem still remains. What can really be done to heal these people?
Who are the Homeless?
Before we can answer this question, we must first understand what homelessness is. Homelessness is not about not having a house. The real question is: what are the reasons the homeless can not obtain regular housing? Housing, of course, is not something one can solve in a short period of time. Housing is to be obtained on a monthly, daily basis—whether one pays rent or a mortgage. And so homelessness is not caused by any particular incident, such as the loss of a job. The basic issue of homelessness is not just poverty or addiction. Rather, it is an overall inability to function in our American economic system.
The requirements of an individual in the Western economic system is complex. One must have a variety of skills, including—multitasking, basic math, functional literacy, listening and communication abilities, control over one’s emotions, quick decision making, obedience to difficult employers and the energy to endure a forty-hour work week. Our ancestors were mostly subsistence farmers, and these skills, while helpful, were unnecessary for success in that agricultural system. However, if a person is born without ability in even one of these areas, that person is economically crippled for the rest of their lives. If someone has two or more of these areas missing in their lives, then they become economically destitute.
These are the homeless. At least one third of all homeless people have some sort of mental illness—whether diagnosed or not. Some are born with a mental illness, others have it developed over time. Many have been crippled from a young age because of experimenting with drugs or alcohol, which damaged not their intelligence, but their social and processing abilities. Many have experienced severe trauma—like child abuse or participation in a war—and so have been socially crippled.
But many have suffered such difficulties and yet pulled through economically. Some born with autism are functioning even on the professional level. Others with post traumatic stress syndrome have succeeded in amazing ways. Others who have abused themselves with drugs or alcohol have pulled through with economic success. Why have the homeless not pulled through to economic normalcy?
There are two other common characteristics of the homeless. One is that they have little or no support network. Their family rejected them, they have no real friends who are economically independent. Thus, when the many weaknesses in the floor of our economic system fell in on them, they had no one to pull them up. Without a social support network, we are all extremely vulnerable, and in some cases, helpless.
The other common characteristic of the homeless is shame. The homeless understand that, whether through their own fault or through some inner weakness, they have failed in their basic responsibility to society—to be productive. In our society, success is measured to what degree one achieved the American Dream—material security and plenty. But many may be considered full citizens without achieving such success. And citizenship—membership in our society—is determined by productivity. Having a full time job is productive. Raising children to adulthood is productive. Even doing volunteer work most of one’s week is productive, although not as productive as "real" work.
But the chronic homeless, due to their inability to function in our economic system, are disrespected. Our culture can approve of pornographers that make enough money to support themselves, but they cannot respect a persons whose only recourse is begging or dumpster diving—no matter how much work such occupations require. These are shamed in every measure possible. Not only are they dependent on others for their survival, they are given unreasonable demands in order to obtain the basics of their survival. They are mocked by the general populace and denigrated to their face by passersby. They are despised by their families and forgotten by their old friends. The more helpless are regularly beaten by suburban teenagers, looking for excitement. The homeless are the recipients of pity or scorn or a handout or apathy. But one thing they never receive is equality.
And so the homeless develop their own culture. A culture, it is true, that supports denial and false honor, but that is simply because they cannot endure more shame. It is a culture which is devoted to eradicating guilt and dishonor. Some chose the route of forgetting their lives and becoming an imaginary person through drugs or alcohol. Some pursue religion in their own individual, eccentric manner. Some bounce from community to community, attempting to find anyone who will accept them for who they are and not place too many demands on them. Some continually make attempts to re-enter the economic forces that they already failed in. Many of them fail again and again, causing their shame to deepen until unbearable. And so they return to their half-destroyed community, ready to escape their shame again, by any means possible.
What are the needs of the homeless?
In looking to minister to the homeless, one would naturally ask what their needs are. Of course, the best way to discover their needs is to ask them. Too often have ignorant but well-meaning middle class Christians have determined how they are going to "minister to the homeless", or equally ignorant politicians make sounds about "solving" the homeless "problem." However, these lay ministers and politicians don’t have the first idea of what homelessness is really about. They create in their minds an idea of homelessness, fueled by the equally ignorant, judgmental-then-pity-filled media, and then create in their minds the solution to the problem that actually only exists in their minds.
If I had my preference, it would be law that every congressperson, judge, state senator, mayor, principal of any school over elementary, and church leader, before they took their office, would spend a week being homeless, led around by a homeless man, wearing the clothes one receives on the street. It would only be a taste of poverty and lowliness, but it might give them an idea of what the homeless deal with on a day to day basis.
However, since such a law can never be passed in our present system, the next best thing would be to ask and listen to homeless people. What do they say they need? What help do they really look for? Should one spend years interviewing hundreds of homeless folks, one might know what they really are seeking. Below are the results of the responses I received over ten years. It does not replace speaking with and understanding the homeless oneself, but the few insights I have collected are a step in the right direction:
For the first few months, in asking the homeless what they need, we would probably only get an answer about their physical needs. No, these are not their deepest needs, but until one has relationship with the homeless, they cannot trust us with the real answers. They will tell us that they need open access to bathrooms, because most bathrooms are closed to them and in an urban setting urinating in public is illegal. Perhaps they might tell you that in their area they have no access to free clothing. Or perhaps they will tell you that they need food given them before they go to work. Perhaps they will tell you that they have difficulty getting a shower, even once a week. Maybe they will mention how important it is for them to have foot care and that clean socks and healing lotion for their feet are like gold. If it is rainy or cold, they will tell you how hard it is to keep themselves warm and dry out on the street. They may say they need blankets or sleeping bags or tarps or tents. Some will be so bold as to ask for a motel room. All this is true, and necessary. All this we are told by God to provide. But benevolence is insufficient to provide ministry, true spirituality to the homeless. It is an excellent place to begin, and it meets the "felt" needs of the homeless. But there are deeper needs than these.
I have been told that the homeless need an opportunity to work. But their need is not for a forty-hour a week job, nor is it really for a few hours work. Most homeless can work and greatly desire work—this is one way to overcome their shame. However, most homeless also are unable to work every day, or, depending, even every other day. Some can’t do just any job, but their work has to avoid their issues or problems. Some can’t work with other people. Some can’t do heavy labor. Others have difficulty functioning in an office setting. Others cannot endure harsh-sounding commands. It all depends. So the work that would need to be offered is flexible work. Ideally, flexible work that would be available many days of the week, but didn’t actually depend on them to be there every day. This is difficult to achieve, but perhaps we might better understand why the derisive comment, "Just get a job" is so false. One homeless brother thought of a job bank that would request Christians to offer the homeless temporary work and there would be a place with chairs, a phone and a receptionist who might mediate between employers and potential laborers. Somewhat like a flexible day labor service, but the employer pays the laborers directly.
Other homeless expressed the need of a place to stay when ill, even if it’s just a stomach flu. Some homeless will often catch pneumonia or have broken bones, and it is almost impossible to heal on the street, forced to walk miles from meal to meal. If there was a place of rest where the homeless could heal, that would be wonderful
We are still in the arena of standard "homeless ministry"-- benevolence. However, there is a whole realm of things that the homeless value, that they might never express, except to those they consider their true friends. The homeless desperately need honor and respect from those who care for them. They need friendly social interaction. They need people to not treat them as dogs or as projects, but as good human beings. They need to be able to be free to call someone up just to talk, if they want, or to show up at someone’s house and not feel like they are an intrusion. They need to know that someone cares enough to pray for them and to listen to their real hopes and desires and not judge them for it. The homeless need friends, not who will selfishly take advantage of them, nor who will use them to cover up their guilt for being suburban. They need people who show them that they really care. The glue between benevolence and spiritual ministry is encouraging relationship.
Even more than this, the homeless need a community. A community of people who will be there to help when they are in desperate need. A community who will keep them accountable to limits that make sense to them, but will not shame them if they fail. A community that makes them feel like they belong, really belong. People who will be truly happy to see them.
The homeless need a place to worship. They are a truly spiritual people, and some know God better than those who have attended church all their lives. About one third of the homeless truly seek God and see Jesus as an essential part of their lives. They haven’t gone to church, perhaps, because they were outsiders to the church. So they need a place to worship where they don’t feel inadequate because they wear the "wrong" clothes or speak at the wrong time or use the wrong language or smoke out back. They need a Christian community that accepts them as they are, and still loves them enough to assist them when they see that they need to be more. They need a Christian community who will pray for both their felt needs and their real needs. A people of God who will not shame them for their inadequacies, but praise them for their accomplishments, no matter how small.
This is not a job for one person, or one couple. I know. I have been trying for ten years, with many to help serve, but few to offer the community support that was absolutely necessary. Love like this with a group that is so needy, so desperate, will suck you dry if you are on your own. But if there is a group of people who will love without judgement, then they might succeed in bringing two spiritually crippled groups to run in the grace of God’s light and love—both the homeless and the middle class who serve them.
But such a community could only succeed if it is not a greater-to-lesser relationship. If the homeless are not given input on decisions, then the effort will fail. If any leader establishes a new rule for every problem, the effort will fail. If the leadership loses patience with the needy, throws up their hands and say, "Won’t they every get better?" the effort will fail. If some Christians use their own cultural standards to point at other brothers or sisters and say, "They aren’t a good enough Christian," then the effort will fail. If the community fails to listen to the needs of the least, the weakest, of the community, then the effort will fail. If brothers or sisters who fall into sin, but they turn back and repent each time, aren’t forgiven for simply repenting, then the effort will fail. God must have much mercy on such a community.
What can churches do?
Honestly, I must say that such a community is what I have been attempting to establish for seven years. Anawim Christian Community is still ministering by God’s grace. If I were seeking support for my congregation, I would ask for workers who love and serve and listen—which is what I pray to God for. But such a community is not the only way churches can support the homeless. A coalition of churches can also support the homeless in the following ways:
Provide a network of homeless-friendly congregations
Create a list of churches that have an open-door, no shame policy for the homeless. Perhaps a list of Christian recovery groups could also be made. The churches who would be on this list are not just those that have a "homeless ministry." There are many who do benevolent work for the homeless, but the homeless are not welcome to visit their service. Or if the homeless did visit the service, they would be made immediately uncomfortable by the dress (or the gazes) of the congregation. Rather, a list should be made of churches that specifically welcome the homeless and make allowances for them, such as, in Portland, Liberation Street Church and Peace Mennonite Church (not to mention Anawim Christian Community).
Establish prayer/counseling centers for the lower class
Perhaps a center can be developed downtown, or near downtown that offers prayer and counseling for the needy and poor. Some coffee can be offered, and maybe a pot of soup, but the focus of the ministry would be to welcome and to spiritually serve those on the street. It wouldn’t be a shelter, but a quiet place to focus on God and Jesus in the way the needy one can understand.
Outreach to the homeless that do not have centers near them right now
In the Portland area, there are homeless in Troutdale and in Forest Park that do not have ministries assisting them. Creative thinkers could establish small ministries that might assist these folks.
Encourage ministers to the homeless
Perhaps a multi-church coalition could find ways to support the ministers that already are there, giving their all for the needy. Many believers are already at their limit, giving all they can for the homeless, poor and mentally ill. But they have few to encourage them, to be their in their times of need, to understand their daily concerns, to pray for them at all times, to support them in spiritual warfare. A group that would support the ministers of the homeless would be supporting the homeless in a powerful way.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Thursday, April 06, 2006
The Seven Most Important Decisions Of Your Life
What are the most important decisions of your life: Who do I marry? What lifestyle do I choose? How do I respond to crises in my life? Who is my core community?
But these decisions aren’t as important as the decisions you make before God. God has more power to change your life than a spouse or crises. These seven decisions will change your life for the better as nothing else will. If you make these decisions, it will help you make the other, less important decisions, and make living with them easier to bear.
Decide To be Devoted to God
"You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, all of your soul, all of your mind and all of your strength."
Not: to believe in God; to worship God on Sundays
But to: Honor God with your every breath, every movement and thought. Surrendering to God all that you are, and relying on Him to be your strength.
Decide To Commit Yourself to Jesus as Lord
"Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?"
Not: To believe in Jesus, to pray the "sinner’s prayer"
But to: Recognize Jesus as your king, even if no one else follows him; To obey his law, to submit to his commands, to be his servant.
Decide To Join a Group of Followers of Jesus
"Be devoted to encouraging one another to love and good deeds."
Not: To be a member of a church; decide where I go on Sunday mornings
But to: Seek a group of people who love Jesus with their whole lives who you will share your life with and talk to each other about how you can all better love God and follow Jesus.
Decide To Live as Jesus Lived
"I have given you an example that you should do as I did."
Not: To be nice; to see yourself as better than others
But to: Be Jesus’ representative in every situation; pray as He would pray; love as He would love; serve as He would serve.
Decide To Seek Out the Spirit’s Work Through You
"The Father will give the Holy Spirit to whoever keeps asking."
Not: To get a positive spiritual experience; To receive a miracle
But to: Continually seek the Holy Spirit to do powerful works for the sake of others; Pray for the Spirit daily to work through you and strengthen you.
Decide To Love Those You Dislike
"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you."
Not: To be sickly sweet to those who irritate you; To forget the mistakes of others
But to: Forgive what you remember; help the needy who have harmed you; assist everyone who has need, without exception
Decide To Surrender Yourself for the Sake of Others
"If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me."
Not: To complain about how much you have "sacrificed"; to get honor for the work you’ve done
But to: Set aside yourself—your family, your friends, your honor, your loves, your preferences, your irritations, your health, your desires, your hopes, even your very life—for the sake of Jesus and those who need you.
If you have already made all of these decisions, then the rest of your life is simply deepening your decisions, and applying these decisions to more and more of your life.
Don’t Give Yourself Just Part Of A Christian Life—Decide to Do It ALL
But these decisions aren’t as important as the decisions you make before God. God has more power to change your life than a spouse or crises. These seven decisions will change your life for the better as nothing else will. If you make these decisions, it will help you make the other, less important decisions, and make living with them easier to bear.
Decide To be Devoted to God
"You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, all of your soul, all of your mind and all of your strength."
Not: to believe in God; to worship God on Sundays
But to: Honor God with your every breath, every movement and thought. Surrendering to God all that you are, and relying on Him to be your strength.
Decide To Commit Yourself to Jesus as Lord
"Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?"
Not: To believe in Jesus, to pray the "sinner’s prayer"
But to: Recognize Jesus as your king, even if no one else follows him; To obey his law, to submit to his commands, to be his servant.
Decide To Join a Group of Followers of Jesus
"Be devoted to encouraging one another to love and good deeds."
Not: To be a member of a church; decide where I go on Sunday mornings
But to: Seek a group of people who love Jesus with their whole lives who you will share your life with and talk to each other about how you can all better love God and follow Jesus.
Decide To Live as Jesus Lived
"I have given you an example that you should do as I did."
Not: To be nice; to see yourself as better than others
But to: Be Jesus’ representative in every situation; pray as He would pray; love as He would love; serve as He would serve.
Decide To Seek Out the Spirit’s Work Through You
"The Father will give the Holy Spirit to whoever keeps asking."
Not: To get a positive spiritual experience; To receive a miracle
But to: Continually seek the Holy Spirit to do powerful works for the sake of others; Pray for the Spirit daily to work through you and strengthen you.
Decide To Love Those You Dislike
"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you."
Not: To be sickly sweet to those who irritate you; To forget the mistakes of others
But to: Forgive what you remember; help the needy who have harmed you; assist everyone who has need, without exception
Decide To Surrender Yourself for the Sake of Others
"If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me."
Not: To complain about how much you have "sacrificed"; to get honor for the work you’ve done
But to: Set aside yourself—your family, your friends, your honor, your loves, your preferences, your irritations, your health, your desires, your hopes, even your very life—for the sake of Jesus and those who need you.
If you have already made all of these decisions, then the rest of your life is simply deepening your decisions, and applying these decisions to more and more of your life.
Don’t Give Yourself Just Part Of A Christian Life—Decide to Do It ALL
Monday, March 13, 2006
Faith and Knowledge
Gordon Smith asks: "At what point does faith and knowledge meet? "
Faith is a kind of knowledge. People sometimes get confused about this since a famous philosopher talked about a "leap of faith." Suddenly, faith is something to be believed without facts, without evidence. But no faith works that way.
When we get on an airplane for the first time, we may not have studied all the statistics proving the safety of air flight, nor would we have examined the plane itself for it's soundness. However, we know of and personally know of many people who did fly in airplanes and had no question about their safety. And we have heard of literally thousands, perhaps millions of people who take airplane flights, and so we have a certain amount of knowledge that air travel is safe.
Nevertheless, when we climb on any airplane and wait for it to fly, it is an act of faith. We know that there is a possibility of the airplane crashing. And though it may be unlikely, we know that this airplane we are on could be one of the few that have serious problems. That could make us nervous, even jittery. But we climb on that plane, and act on our faith. It is a faith based on some knowledge, but it is still faith.
This is how it is with us and God as well. God asks us to do things or requests that we believe certain things about him. Do we just take it because the Bible says so? No-- what we believe about God in some way fits with our experience of life. And we have heard others who have similar beliefs in God and how those beliefs have formed their lives for the better.
God recognizes this and supports the knowledge that confirms our faith. This is why God tells us to "remember" so often in Scripture. We need to remember what God has done for us already, because that-- more than any passage in Scripture-- is the basis of our faith. The children of Israel weren't asked to just believe on God based on nothing-- they had the crossing of the Red Sea to base their faith on. We, as Christians, aren't asked to believe in a God we don't understand, but a God who loved us so much that he surrendered his Son to die on the cross for us. The cross was real. Our experiences of God in our lives are real. They are the knowledge on which we build our faith.
Faith is a kind of knowledge. People sometimes get confused about this since a famous philosopher talked about a "leap of faith." Suddenly, faith is something to be believed without facts, without evidence. But no faith works that way.
When we get on an airplane for the first time, we may not have studied all the statistics proving the safety of air flight, nor would we have examined the plane itself for it's soundness. However, we know of and personally know of many people who did fly in airplanes and had no question about their safety. And we have heard of literally thousands, perhaps millions of people who take airplane flights, and so we have a certain amount of knowledge that air travel is safe.
Nevertheless, when we climb on any airplane and wait for it to fly, it is an act of faith. We know that there is a possibility of the airplane crashing. And though it may be unlikely, we know that this airplane we are on could be one of the few that have serious problems. That could make us nervous, even jittery. But we climb on that plane, and act on our faith. It is a faith based on some knowledge, but it is still faith.
This is how it is with us and God as well. God asks us to do things or requests that we believe certain things about him. Do we just take it because the Bible says so? No-- what we believe about God in some way fits with our experience of life. And we have heard others who have similar beliefs in God and how those beliefs have formed their lives for the better.
God recognizes this and supports the knowledge that confirms our faith. This is why God tells us to "remember" so often in Scripture. We need to remember what God has done for us already, because that-- more than any passage in Scripture-- is the basis of our faith. The children of Israel weren't asked to just believe on God based on nothing-- they had the crossing of the Red Sea to base their faith on. We, as Christians, aren't asked to believe in a God we don't understand, but a God who loved us so much that he surrendered his Son to die on the cross for us. The cross was real. Our experiences of God in our lives are real. They are the knowledge on which we build our faith.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Pastoral ministry
These are questions given me by someone interviewing me for a class.
Why are you a pastor? What led you to your sense of being "called" into pastoral ministry?
Because I have been a Jesus freak for a long time, some folks assumed that I would try to be a pastor. I always told them that I couldn't be a pastor because I was too rude and forthright in speech to be a good pastor. No one would want to come to my church! I actually trained to be a missionary.
In 1997, God spoke to me to quit my job and to work full time in ministry among the homeless some of us had already begun. Diane and I started Anawim ministry full time in Peace Mennonite Church, which was a ministry to the homeless community in Gresham. We did some counseling, a bit of teaching and food ministry, as well as referrals. After about a year or so, Peace, as a church, determined that they didn't want to participate with Anawim any more. So we had a choice, we could either stop what God had called us to do, or we could begin our own congregation. So instead of Anawim being an outreach of Peace, it became it's own congregation and we worked as a church plant. At that point I became the de-facto pastor-- Diane didn't want it.
So, in a sense, I never had a call to be a pastor. I had a call to do ministry, to teach, to assist the homeless and the mentally ill. I also have a call to write and to pray. But I would be doing this whether I was a pastor or not. I am not sure if I am a good pastor. I certainly still am of the opinion that I am not a good pastor for those of middle class culture. But I am doing what God wants me to do.
What are some of your personal and professional values in pastoral ministry? What is important to you?
I actually have a long list. These are the people God is looking for:
Those who trust in the Lord to provide their needs, even if their needs are not met for a time.
-Those who will give up on the American dream, but be content with what God has given them.
Those who do mercy to others, not just to the repentant, but to those who have the possibility of repenting.
Those who are directed by the word of Jesus and the Spirit.
Those who create a community which encourages discipleship.
Those who remain gentle when provoked—i.e. those who create trust in crisis.
Those who reveal the Lord in a tri-unity of action, attitude and word.
Those who confess and repent their own faults, especially reconciling with those whom they have done wrong.
Those who do not judge by appearances, but listen to find the hidden core of another.
Those who know that their wisdom does not rest in themselves, but they are dependant on the Lord for what little wisdom they have.
Those who know that if they fail to depend on the Lord, their leadership fails.
Those who are humble before those to whom one is giving hospitality or service.
Those who do not seek the world or worldly means to meet their goals in the Lord, but they are patient for the Lord’s timing.
Those who regularly wait in the presence of the Lord, listening to the Spirit.
Those willing and ready to do the lowest tasks joyfully, knowing that humility is the means of our exaltation.
Those not seeking titles or positions or authorities, but accepting responsibility when it is necessary and offered.
Those who will consistently pray for others in need, so guiding the Lord’s grace to them.
Those ready to use all resources at their disposal for the outcast, the needy and the seekers of God, so that they are known as generous.
Those who will do whatever whenever however, using whatever resources in order to draw other closer to the Lord.
Those who do not demand a salary, but will accept whatever the Lord offers—even if it is nothing—just in order to do the Lord’s work.
Those who will not give up on one who is soft toward the Lord for the sake of another, but will draw all toward unity in Christ.
Those who do not force the truth of God on anyone, but grant all the option of refusing to hear it.
Those who will create space for, opportunity for, and desire in others to listen to the Spirit.
Those who have experience of hard labor on earth and of hard rest in the Lord.
Those who will sacrifice their comfort, their well-being, their relationships, their possessions, their future in this world for the sake of God’s kingdom.
While this isn't the normal definition of a "pastor", I believe that the Lord is calling people with these commitments to be in ministry, no matter what their profession.
What is one of the more difficult specific pastoral situations you have faced?
In broad terms, what do you most enjoy about being a pastor? What do you find most difficult?
(Just to let you know, all of the following is my personal experience)
It is hard to stand up to someone who is threatening to beat you, fists in your face, and not give in to anger, or give up on protecting others.
It is hard to see people give up on the Lord for their own gods that have destroyed their lives up until that point.
It is hard to tell people what you know they don't want to hear, and then be blamed because they didn't like the message.
It is hard to study for a week, a month or a year on a subject, and then be told that you don't know what you're talking about.
It is hard to be called a heretic for standing with what Jesus says.
It is hard to rarely have a moment of quiet for yourself.
It is hard to hardly have time to talk to your wife, to be mentally exhausted all the time, to go to bed each night, with your body feeling like you have been beaten.
It is great when you see people making decisions for God based on one of your teachings.
It is great to get the opportunity to baptize someone.
It is great to see dozens of people show up just because they wanted to hear you teach God's word.
It is great to have someone who you think is ignorant-- because they are mentally ill, for instance-- teach you something that you never would have thought of yourself.
It is great to have the opportunity to "set appointments" to pray and to study God's word, and no one will tell you that you aren't doing anything important.
It is great to share God's love with people all the time, every day, through both action and word.
It is great to have the opportunity to do just what God wants you to do, when He tells you to do it.
But probably my most favorite part of being in this ministry is seeing the Spirit work through me, because I am too ignorant, too weak, too tired, too impatient to do it right. So when it happens just right, I know that it's God working through me! That's the best!
Why are you a pastor? What led you to your sense of being "called" into pastoral ministry?
Because I have been a Jesus freak for a long time, some folks assumed that I would try to be a pastor. I always told them that I couldn't be a pastor because I was too rude and forthright in speech to be a good pastor. No one would want to come to my church! I actually trained to be a missionary.
In 1997, God spoke to me to quit my job and to work full time in ministry among the homeless some of us had already begun. Diane and I started Anawim ministry full time in Peace Mennonite Church, which was a ministry to the homeless community in Gresham. We did some counseling, a bit of teaching and food ministry, as well as referrals. After about a year or so, Peace, as a church, determined that they didn't want to participate with Anawim any more. So we had a choice, we could either stop what God had called us to do, or we could begin our own congregation. So instead of Anawim being an outreach of Peace, it became it's own congregation and we worked as a church plant. At that point I became the de-facto pastor-- Diane didn't want it.
So, in a sense, I never had a call to be a pastor. I had a call to do ministry, to teach, to assist the homeless and the mentally ill. I also have a call to write and to pray. But I would be doing this whether I was a pastor or not. I am not sure if I am a good pastor. I certainly still am of the opinion that I am not a good pastor for those of middle class culture. But I am doing what God wants me to do.
What are some of your personal and professional values in pastoral ministry? What is important to you?
I actually have a long list. These are the people God is looking for:
Those who trust in the Lord to provide their needs, even if their needs are not met for a time.
-Those who will give up on the American dream, but be content with what God has given them.
Those who do mercy to others, not just to the repentant, but to those who have the possibility of repenting.
Those who are directed by the word of Jesus and the Spirit.
Those who create a community which encourages discipleship.
Those who remain gentle when provoked—i.e. those who create trust in crisis.
Those who reveal the Lord in a tri-unity of action, attitude and word.
Those who confess and repent their own faults, especially reconciling with those whom they have done wrong.
Those who do not judge by appearances, but listen to find the hidden core of another.
Those who know that their wisdom does not rest in themselves, but they are dependant on the Lord for what little wisdom they have.
Those who know that if they fail to depend on the Lord, their leadership fails.
Those who are humble before those to whom one is giving hospitality or service.
Those who do not seek the world or worldly means to meet their goals in the Lord, but they are patient for the Lord’s timing.
Those who regularly wait in the presence of the Lord, listening to the Spirit.
Those willing and ready to do the lowest tasks joyfully, knowing that humility is the means of our exaltation.
Those not seeking titles or positions or authorities, but accepting responsibility when it is necessary and offered.
Those who will consistently pray for others in need, so guiding the Lord’s grace to them.
Those ready to use all resources at their disposal for the outcast, the needy and the seekers of God, so that they are known as generous.
Those who will do whatever whenever however, using whatever resources in order to draw other closer to the Lord.
Those who do not demand a salary, but will accept whatever the Lord offers—even if it is nothing—just in order to do the Lord’s work.
Those who will not give up on one who is soft toward the Lord for the sake of another, but will draw all toward unity in Christ.
Those who do not force the truth of God on anyone, but grant all the option of refusing to hear it.
Those who will create space for, opportunity for, and desire in others to listen to the Spirit.
Those who have experience of hard labor on earth and of hard rest in the Lord.
Those who will sacrifice their comfort, their well-being, their relationships, their possessions, their future in this world for the sake of God’s kingdom.
While this isn't the normal definition of a "pastor", I believe that the Lord is calling people with these commitments to be in ministry, no matter what their profession.
What is one of the more difficult specific pastoral situations you have faced?
In broad terms, what do you most enjoy about being a pastor? What do you find most difficult?
(Just to let you know, all of the following is my personal experience)
It is hard to stand up to someone who is threatening to beat you, fists in your face, and not give in to anger, or give up on protecting others.
It is hard to see people give up on the Lord for their own gods that have destroyed their lives up until that point.
It is hard to tell people what you know they don't want to hear, and then be blamed because they didn't like the message.
It is hard to study for a week, a month or a year on a subject, and then be told that you don't know what you're talking about.
It is hard to be called a heretic for standing with what Jesus says.
It is hard to rarely have a moment of quiet for yourself.
It is hard to hardly have time to talk to your wife, to be mentally exhausted all the time, to go to bed each night, with your body feeling like you have been beaten.
It is great when you see people making decisions for God based on one of your teachings.
It is great to get the opportunity to baptize someone.
It is great to see dozens of people show up just because they wanted to hear you teach God's word.
It is great to have someone who you think is ignorant-- because they are mentally ill, for instance-- teach you something that you never would have thought of yourself.
It is great to have the opportunity to "set appointments" to pray and to study God's word, and no one will tell you that you aren't doing anything important.
It is great to share God's love with people all the time, every day, through both action and word.
It is great to have the opportunity to do just what God wants you to do, when He tells you to do it.
But probably my most favorite part of being in this ministry is seeing the Spirit work through me, because I am too ignorant, too weak, too tired, too impatient to do it right. So when it happens just right, I know that it's God working through me! That's the best!
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Scripture and Jesus' Deity
My response to a discussion along conservative/liberal lines on Genesis 1, the Jesus Seminar and Jesus' deity.
My point of view is that the Bible is true, in everything that is significant to the Bible. However, the Bible does contradict itself in places. This shouldn't be a surprise, or a problem. We, as Mennonites, deal with this issue all the time. Jesus said "love your enemies". The OT says "hate and destroy your enemies" in certain places. This is a contradiction. Because we are followers of Jesus, we accept what He says, and assume that He knows better. All evangelicals have to deal with the same issue. After all, Paul speaks against Mosaic understanding of circumcision and sabbath. Jesus orders the priority of ethics in a different way than Moses did. We have to work with this.
My point is not to neglect any of the Scripture. However, we need to prioritize what we hold to and what we do not. I make priorities through the whole teaching of Jesus.
Sometimes, however, Scripture makes it's own priorities. Such is the case of the creation accounts of Genesis. What we need to remember is that Scripture does not have one creation account, but really four: Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Psalm 104 and Psalm 74:12-17 (although the last isn't meant to be a complete account). There are other references to creation, but these are the main narrative accounts. Much in these accounts are similar-- God creating the world through his word, and the items which are created. However, there are some things that a traditional view of creation doesn't see. First of all, the earth isn't created in these accounts. Gen 1:1 implies it, but when we get to the specifics, we find out in Gen 1:2 that the earth and the sea already existed before day 1. We also find out in Ps 74 that God battled Leviathan before day 1, which probably explains the chaos before day 1. But in looking at all the creation accounts carefully, we also discover that the order and timing of the creation isn't the same. Gen 2 has vegetation created in a completely different order than Gen 1.
What does this mean to me? That the order and time of creation isn't important to the final editor that placed both stories of Gen 1 and 2 together. What was important is that God created it from his word.
What I want you to note, however, is that I didn't get this from science, nor do I care to confirm what science said. I just don't care. But I do care about the significance of Scripture-- and it doesn't seem to me that the writers of the four accounts of creations actually cared about the time frame. The writer of Gen 1 did care a bit about the time frame, but only to make his point about the Sabbath, it seems.
My point of view of the Jesus Seminar is based on the same principle. That Scripture is important, and how it presents things are important. The Jesus Seminar comes from the point of view that somehow we can achieve the "real" (i.e. "historical") Jesus by a democratic process of determining the reliability of each paricope. I'm sorry, but this is not scientific, nor reasonable. Even Bruce Chilton, who was a part of this process, withdrew himself from it because they were more concerned with publicity than truth. Ben Witherington has written a good critique of the Jesus Seminar.
Yes, we need to look at the gospels to understand what they said, and recognize that we have different points of view. But to begin with a bias of "let's see how much in the gospels don't fit our presuppositions of what Jesus ought to be like" is ridiculous. John Meier's books A Marginal Jew is a much more historical approach. But what is better is Raymond Brown's approach of accepting the cannon as what we have and trying to understand the writers approach. We can't get past the apostles. The apostle's Jesus is the only Jesus we have. If the apostle's Jesus isn't adequate for someone, then they need to look somewhere else.
Okay, now let's look at Jesus' divinity. There are very few Scriptures that actually speak about Jesus' divinity, the most straight forward of this are the two passages in John: "The Word was with God and the Word was God" and Thomas' statement: "My Lord and my God." The most important thing is to note what the possibilities are when understanding these statements from a first century Jewish point of view. To call a man god seems blasphemous on the surface. But there are three Jewish possibilities:
a. Jesus is a powerful Lord under the Father. This is a strong possibility, because there was a sect in Judaism that accepted Moses as a "god" after he died. This would mean a powerful angelic being. (These texts can be read about in Dale Allison's book "The New Moses"). To hold that Jesus became this kind of being is basically the Uniterians point of view.
b. Jesus is the Father himself, who became human. This is the orthodox point of view, although is could be a modalist's point of view as well. This is what "in essence" means in the orthodox creeds.
c. Jesus was a powerful angelic being already, a "son of god" (as mentioned in Job 1), who assisted the Father in creation and then became human, and then was risen up above other "gods" in heaven to be seated at the right hand of the Father, the god Most High. This is the Arian point of view.
All of these views have good Scriptural basis, and all of them can represent the whole of the New Testament (although I think the Uniterians have to make some leaps in exegesis defending their point that Jesus didn't pre-exist). But my point is this: The New Testament doesn't distinctly choose between these three points of view. Any of them could be true. And if we say that one is true, above the other, we are saying that something not found in Scripture is the truth. I can't do that. So I refuse to choose, and allow the NT to hold this as an enigma.
I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't look to orthodox theology or science or anything else to find the truth in Scripture. We just need to be careful readers of the Scripture. And then we will know what God wants us to know. But if we continually read into Scripture or take out of Scripture what God put in there, then we might as well chuck the whole thing and start with something else. At least then we'll be honest before God what we really believe in.
My point of view is that the Bible is true, in everything that is significant to the Bible. However, the Bible does contradict itself in places. This shouldn't be a surprise, or a problem. We, as Mennonites, deal with this issue all the time. Jesus said "love your enemies". The OT says "hate and destroy your enemies" in certain places. This is a contradiction. Because we are followers of Jesus, we accept what He says, and assume that He knows better. All evangelicals have to deal with the same issue. After all, Paul speaks against Mosaic understanding of circumcision and sabbath. Jesus orders the priority of ethics in a different way than Moses did. We have to work with this.
My point is not to neglect any of the Scripture. However, we need to prioritize what we hold to and what we do not. I make priorities through the whole teaching of Jesus.
Sometimes, however, Scripture makes it's own priorities. Such is the case of the creation accounts of Genesis. What we need to remember is that Scripture does not have one creation account, but really four: Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Psalm 104 and Psalm 74:12-17 (although the last isn't meant to be a complete account). There are other references to creation, but these are the main narrative accounts. Much in these accounts are similar-- God creating the world through his word, and the items which are created. However, there are some things that a traditional view of creation doesn't see. First of all, the earth isn't created in these accounts. Gen 1:1 implies it, but when we get to the specifics, we find out in Gen 1:2 that the earth and the sea already existed before day 1. We also find out in Ps 74 that God battled Leviathan before day 1, which probably explains the chaos before day 1. But in looking at all the creation accounts carefully, we also discover that the order and timing of the creation isn't the same. Gen 2 has vegetation created in a completely different order than Gen 1.
What does this mean to me? That the order and time of creation isn't important to the final editor that placed both stories of Gen 1 and 2 together. What was important is that God created it from his word.
What I want you to note, however, is that I didn't get this from science, nor do I care to confirm what science said. I just don't care. But I do care about the significance of Scripture-- and it doesn't seem to me that the writers of the four accounts of creations actually cared about the time frame. The writer of Gen 1 did care a bit about the time frame, but only to make his point about the Sabbath, it seems.
My point of view of the Jesus Seminar is based on the same principle. That Scripture is important, and how it presents things are important. The Jesus Seminar comes from the point of view that somehow we can achieve the "real" (i.e. "historical") Jesus by a democratic process of determining the reliability of each paricope. I'm sorry, but this is not scientific, nor reasonable. Even Bruce Chilton, who was a part of this process, withdrew himself from it because they were more concerned with publicity than truth. Ben Witherington has written a good critique of the Jesus Seminar.
Yes, we need to look at the gospels to understand what they said, and recognize that we have different points of view. But to begin with a bias of "let's see how much in the gospels don't fit our presuppositions of what Jesus ought to be like" is ridiculous. John Meier's books A Marginal Jew is a much more historical approach. But what is better is Raymond Brown's approach of accepting the cannon as what we have and trying to understand the writers approach. We can't get past the apostles. The apostle's Jesus is the only Jesus we have. If the apostle's Jesus isn't adequate for someone, then they need to look somewhere else.
Okay, now let's look at Jesus' divinity. There are very few Scriptures that actually speak about Jesus' divinity, the most straight forward of this are the two passages in John: "The Word was with God and the Word was God" and Thomas' statement: "My Lord and my God." The most important thing is to note what the possibilities are when understanding these statements from a first century Jewish point of view. To call a man god seems blasphemous on the surface. But there are three Jewish possibilities:
a. Jesus is a powerful Lord under the Father. This is a strong possibility, because there was a sect in Judaism that accepted Moses as a "god" after he died. This would mean a powerful angelic being. (These texts can be read about in Dale Allison's book "The New Moses"). To hold that Jesus became this kind of being is basically the Uniterians point of view.
b. Jesus is the Father himself, who became human. This is the orthodox point of view, although is could be a modalist's point of view as well. This is what "in essence" means in the orthodox creeds.
c. Jesus was a powerful angelic being already, a "son of god" (as mentioned in Job 1), who assisted the Father in creation and then became human, and then was risen up above other "gods" in heaven to be seated at the right hand of the Father, the god Most High. This is the Arian point of view.
All of these views have good Scriptural basis, and all of them can represent the whole of the New Testament (although I think the Uniterians have to make some leaps in exegesis defending their point that Jesus didn't pre-exist). But my point is this: The New Testament doesn't distinctly choose between these three points of view. Any of them could be true. And if we say that one is true, above the other, we are saying that something not found in Scripture is the truth. I can't do that. So I refuse to choose, and allow the NT to hold this as an enigma.
I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't look to orthodox theology or science or anything else to find the truth in Scripture. We just need to be careful readers of the Scripture. And then we will know what God wants us to know. But if we continually read into Scripture or take out of Scripture what God put in there, then we might as well chuck the whole thing and start with something else. At least then we'll be honest before God what we really believe in.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Origins and the Bible
ok steve here is some questions i have ,i was reading about dinasaurs and evolution ,from a national geographic and it has me questioning God and his creation as opposed to the Bible they are very contradicting and as science seems to proven the earth and its inhabitants have been around for billions of years
First of all, the Bible doesn't teach that the earth is only a few days older than Adam. Genesis 1 says that before the seven day creation "The EARTH was formless and void and was covered by the DEEP" The earth already existed before the seven day creation, which means that it was a re-creation, rather than the initial creation.
There is other Biblical evidence for that-- in Psalm 74:12-17, it talks about a battle that God had with Leviathan BEFORE the seven day creation (talked about in the latter part of the passage). So this is how creation works out in the Bible-- God created the earth sometime in the past, we don't know when or how. Then there was a terrible, chaotic war between God and other spiritual powers that threw the earth into chaos, and the ocean covered all of the earth. Then God began re-creating the world, with the current species and land forms we have.
Now, there are a lot of gaps in the Bible, here. We know nothing between the creation of the world and the war. What happened there? Scientists who have studied the fossil record have discovered something interesting. That species, rather than evolving over a long period of time, would suddenly spout in a revatively short period of time-- ten thousand years, perhaps-- and then remain stable for a long period of time. Then, there would occur some catastrophe which would kill off most, but not all, species, and then there would be a quick period of new species appearing again.
Frankly, I think this works with what we know about the Bible pretty well. God created the world and then populated his world-- this creation was done not just by God but by the "Sons of God", or angels, including Satan. Once they had made a level of creation they were satisfied with, they left it alone, to see what would happen. Then they would "wipe the board" with some kind of disaster, and begin the creation process again, building on what they had already creating, but making it more complex, more interesting. This time, say, with dinosaurs. Then they let it go for a while. Then they decided to "wipe the board" again, and begin with a new creation, building on the old one, but getting rid of the species they decided didn't work-- like dinosaurs. The battle with Leviathan effectively "wiped the board" again, and then God made a new creation. And then we have the flood which "wiped the board" again, but instead of creating new species-- so it seems, but he might have-- he allowed the earth to re-populate with the creatures on the ark.
Does this dispute evolution? No-- it is just one explanation of the fossil record. Those who don't believe that God and angels have been changing the earth for millions of years won't ever accept it-- but they can't disprove it, either, for the fossil record agrees with it. And if evolution worked the way they said, then why didn't species evolve evenly, over all the times? But the fact is, they didn't. The fossil record proves it.
So why does the fossil record show that the less complex creatures were earlier and the more complex creatures later? Doesn't this prove evolution originated the species? No. If that were true, then computer programs over the last thirty years were caused by evolution. Because computer programs now are much more complex than thirty years ago, and we can display a growth of complexity over a period of time.
Increasing complexity is how intelligent design works as well. If the angels were busy making species, on and off, for a period of millions of years, then why shouldn't they build on what they have already created? Why should anyone think that it wouldn't be from less complex to more, improving as they move on. Frankly, I think that the fossil record better displays intelligent design rather than strict evolution.
Of course, this is a matter of speculation and faith, rather than pure science. But saying that evolution without intelligent design naturally caused the origin of all species is also speculation and faith, rather than pure science. Pure science only says-- "This is what we found, this is the evidence", the conclusion from that evidence belongs to philosophy.
We have to say that evolution exists as a force that changes species. I don't have any problem with that. To say that there was no person involved behind those changes is speculation. I chose to agree with Jesus and the Bible.
First of all, the Bible doesn't teach that the earth is only a few days older than Adam. Genesis 1 says that before the seven day creation "The EARTH was formless and void and was covered by the DEEP" The earth already existed before the seven day creation, which means that it was a re-creation, rather than the initial creation.
There is other Biblical evidence for that-- in Psalm 74:12-17, it talks about a battle that God had with Leviathan BEFORE the seven day creation (talked about in the latter part of the passage). So this is how creation works out in the Bible-- God created the earth sometime in the past, we don't know when or how. Then there was a terrible, chaotic war between God and other spiritual powers that threw the earth into chaos, and the ocean covered all of the earth. Then God began re-creating the world, with the current species and land forms we have.
Now, there are a lot of gaps in the Bible, here. We know nothing between the creation of the world and the war. What happened there? Scientists who have studied the fossil record have discovered something interesting. That species, rather than evolving over a long period of time, would suddenly spout in a revatively short period of time-- ten thousand years, perhaps-- and then remain stable for a long period of time. Then, there would occur some catastrophe which would kill off most, but not all, species, and then there would be a quick period of new species appearing again.
Frankly, I think this works with what we know about the Bible pretty well. God created the world and then populated his world-- this creation was done not just by God but by the "Sons of God", or angels, including Satan. Once they had made a level of creation they were satisfied with, they left it alone, to see what would happen. Then they would "wipe the board" with some kind of disaster, and begin the creation process again, building on what they had already creating, but making it more complex, more interesting. This time, say, with dinosaurs. Then they let it go for a while. Then they decided to "wipe the board" again, and begin with a new creation, building on the old one, but getting rid of the species they decided didn't work-- like dinosaurs. The battle with Leviathan effectively "wiped the board" again, and then God made a new creation. And then we have the flood which "wiped the board" again, but instead of creating new species-- so it seems, but he might have-- he allowed the earth to re-populate with the creatures on the ark.
Does this dispute evolution? No-- it is just one explanation of the fossil record. Those who don't believe that God and angels have been changing the earth for millions of years won't ever accept it-- but they can't disprove it, either, for the fossil record agrees with it. And if evolution worked the way they said, then why didn't species evolve evenly, over all the times? But the fact is, they didn't. The fossil record proves it.
So why does the fossil record show that the less complex creatures were earlier and the more complex creatures later? Doesn't this prove evolution originated the species? No. If that were true, then computer programs over the last thirty years were caused by evolution. Because computer programs now are much more complex than thirty years ago, and we can display a growth of complexity over a period of time.
Increasing complexity is how intelligent design works as well. If the angels were busy making species, on and off, for a period of millions of years, then why shouldn't they build on what they have already created? Why should anyone think that it wouldn't be from less complex to more, improving as they move on. Frankly, I think that the fossil record better displays intelligent design rather than strict evolution.
Of course, this is a matter of speculation and faith, rather than pure science. But saying that evolution without intelligent design naturally caused the origin of all species is also speculation and faith, rather than pure science. Pure science only says-- "This is what we found, this is the evidence", the conclusion from that evidence belongs to philosophy.
We have to say that evolution exists as a force that changes species. I don't have any problem with that. To say that there was no person involved behind those changes is speculation. I chose to agree with Jesus and the Bible.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Apocrypha and Hospitality
I have been reading the book of Sirach, which I consider to be inspired, but I've been reading some passages in there that talk about not welcoming in strangers in your house because they might ruin your reputation. How does this square with Jesus teaching about welcoming the stranger in to your house?
My view of the apocrapha is that they are good books to read, but not inspired. They are like books you might pick up at a Christian bookstore-- good to read, but they aren't doctrinally perfect. I do recommend reading them-- my personal favorites are Sirach and Tobit and the extra stories of Daniel-- but we need to recognize that they will contain some errors.
As far as the passages you mentioned in Sirach, you are right that they do seem to contradict the New Testament teaching about hospitality. Sirach is reflecting the fact that hospitality is primarily for those we count as friends, companions, bosom buddies. The Old Testament, especially in wisdom literature (Psalms, Proverbs, etc), emphasize that who you hang with will, to a certain degree, determine your reputation and character. And we know this to be true, to a certain degree-- our friends convince us of our morality. Peer pressure isn't just an issue for teenagers, it is a way of life for all of us.
But in the New Testament, our character is determined primarily by the Spirit. This gives us the freedom to do some things that the saints without the Spirit could not. We are able to love those who, without the Spirit, could drag us down the path of evil. The other thing, is that Jesus is encouraging us to practice benevolence, not only to our friends, but also to those we don't like, even to our enemies, who do evil to us. This takes hospitality to a different level, one in which peer pressure doesn't enter.
Jesus calls us to a higher morality than Sirach, just like the Old Testament. Not a different morality, just to a higher level. Love for others must overcome our personal concern for reputation.
My view of the apocrapha is that they are good books to read, but not inspired. They are like books you might pick up at a Christian bookstore-- good to read, but they aren't doctrinally perfect. I do recommend reading them-- my personal favorites are Sirach and Tobit and the extra stories of Daniel-- but we need to recognize that they will contain some errors.
As far as the passages you mentioned in Sirach, you are right that they do seem to contradict the New Testament teaching about hospitality. Sirach is reflecting the fact that hospitality is primarily for those we count as friends, companions, bosom buddies. The Old Testament, especially in wisdom literature (Psalms, Proverbs, etc), emphasize that who you hang with will, to a certain degree, determine your reputation and character. And we know this to be true, to a certain degree-- our friends convince us of our morality. Peer pressure isn't just an issue for teenagers, it is a way of life for all of us.
But in the New Testament, our character is determined primarily by the Spirit. This gives us the freedom to do some things that the saints without the Spirit could not. We are able to love those who, without the Spirit, could drag us down the path of evil. The other thing, is that Jesus is encouraging us to practice benevolence, not only to our friends, but also to those we don't like, even to our enemies, who do evil to us. This takes hospitality to a different level, one in which peer pressure doesn't enter.
Jesus calls us to a higher morality than Sirach, just like the Old Testament. Not a different morality, just to a higher level. Love for others must overcome our personal concern for reputation.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Why Repent?
1. If we repent, then we will be forgiven of our sins.
Ezekiel 18:30-32—God judges everyone according to what they do. Therefore repent and turn away from your sin and God will forgive, for he takes no pleasure in the death of anyone.
Jonah 3:1-10—Nineveh was not destroyed because they repented
Matthew 3:4-8—The people came to John, confessed their sins and was baptized by him.
Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3—John preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 1:15—Jesus’ basic message was to repent and to believe in the gospel.
Luke 15:1-10—The Lord rejoices at the repentance of sinners.
Luke 17:3-4—A brother is to forgive a repentant brother.
Luke 24:47—Repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached to all nations.
Acts 2:38—Repent and be baptized and you will be saved.
Acts 3:19—Repent so your sins will be wiped away.
Acts 5:31—Jesus grants repentance to Israel and the forgiveness of sins.
Acts 8:22—Repent that your intention might be forgiven you.
Acts 11:18—God granted to the gentiles the repentance that leads to life.
Acts 20:21—Paul taught repentance and faith in Jesus.
Acts 26:20—Paul taught repentance, turning to God and doing acts in accordance with repentance
II Tim 2:25—God might grant repentance to them leading to the knowledge of the truth
II Pet 3:9—God does not desire anyone to be punished but that all would come to repentance.
I Cor 6:11—Some of you were evildoers, but now you are justified and sanctified.
2.If we don’t repent, we will be punished eternally.
Luke 10:13—Woe to cities of Israel because they did not repent—they will be judged on the last day.
Luke 11:32—Nineveh will condemn the generation of Jesus on the judgment day because Jesus’ generation did not repent
Luke 13:1-5—Unless you repent, great punishment will come upon you
Rev. 2:5—Repent or else Jesus will come and take the lamp stand out of its place
3. If we repent, we can have a good relationship with God.
I John 1:5-10—This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
4. If we repent, we can be restored to our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Luke 17:3-4—If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."
5. If we don’t repent, we will be separated from God’s people.
Matthew 18:15-17—If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
I Corinthians 5:11—Do not associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.
Ezekiel 18:30-32—God judges everyone according to what they do. Therefore repent and turn away from your sin and God will forgive, for he takes no pleasure in the death of anyone.
Jonah 3:1-10—Nineveh was not destroyed because they repented
Matthew 3:4-8—The people came to John, confessed their sins and was baptized by him.
Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3—John preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 1:15—Jesus’ basic message was to repent and to believe in the gospel.
Luke 15:1-10—The Lord rejoices at the repentance of sinners.
Luke 17:3-4—A brother is to forgive a repentant brother.
Luke 24:47—Repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached to all nations.
Acts 2:38—Repent and be baptized and you will be saved.
Acts 3:19—Repent so your sins will be wiped away.
Acts 5:31—Jesus grants repentance to Israel and the forgiveness of sins.
Acts 8:22—Repent that your intention might be forgiven you.
Acts 11:18—God granted to the gentiles the repentance that leads to life.
Acts 20:21—Paul taught repentance and faith in Jesus.
Acts 26:20—Paul taught repentance, turning to God and doing acts in accordance with repentance
II Tim 2:25—God might grant repentance to them leading to the knowledge of the truth
II Pet 3:9—God does not desire anyone to be punished but that all would come to repentance.
I Cor 6:11—Some of you were evildoers, but now you are justified and sanctified.
2.If we don’t repent, we will be punished eternally.
Luke 10:13—Woe to cities of Israel because they did not repent—they will be judged on the last day.
Luke 11:32—Nineveh will condemn the generation of Jesus on the judgment day because Jesus’ generation did not repent
Luke 13:1-5—Unless you repent, great punishment will come upon you
Rev. 2:5—Repent or else Jesus will come and take the lamp stand out of its place
3. If we repent, we can have a good relationship with God.
I John 1:5-10—This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
4. If we repent, we can be restored to our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Luke 17:3-4—If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."
5. If we don’t repent, we will be separated from God’s people.
Matthew 18:15-17—If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
I Corinthians 5:11—Do not associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.
Discussion on Hubris and Hermenutics
Steve,
It seems like some of your assertions are approachingself-righteousness. I doubt you mean them to, butthat's how I read them.
In responding to Larry Eby about the judgment of NewOrleans, you said, "I understand that this seemscontradictory. It is not. If you can't understandit, I respectfully recommend that you meditate on it. Otherwise the Bible and the God of Jesus just makes nosense."And in your response to me, you said, "I understandthat you have probably heard quite a bit of preachingon the prodigal son, but, of course, what we shouldmost be interested in is what Jesus' point is, not anygiven pastor's point."The first example demonstrates an attitude that if wedon't understand the Bible the way you do, it "justmakes no sense". And we should all endeavor to takethe time to understand it the way you do.
Maybe youcan't see it making sense another way, but thatdoesn't mean it can't make sense for others.In the second example, the implicit attitude is thatwhat you are about to exposit *is* Jesus' point. Thisis hubris. Every preacher I've ever heard is"interested in Jesus' point" and is attempting todiscern it. The way you pose "any given pastor'spoint" against "Jesus' point" is specious. For inthis age, 2000 years after he walked the roads ofGalilee, none of us has perfect knowledge of Jesus'point. We're all interpreting. If you cast yourinterpretation as "Jesus' point", this doesn't changethe fact that it's still your interpretation.
In fact, I think the passages you described thataccompany the prodigal story actually support *my*interpretation, in that they say *nothing* about Godor the angels in heaven "accepting" the repentant onesafter having rejected them before. They simplydescribe the joy and rejoicing in heaven now that theones who were lost have repented. Remember, I saidthat repentance is critical to our being able toaccept God's forgiveness. I assert, however, andthese passages don't contradict, that our repentanceis not a prerequisite or requirement for God to acceptus.I don't see how it could be otherwise. For why wouldanyone *want* to repent, if they are facing only thewrath (non-acceptance) of an angry Father God. Howcould they trust that God would -- bing! -- becomeimmediately loving and welcoming only *once we decidedto be good*? Rather, I think people repent becausetheir brokenness allows them to recognize that God isstill there, loving them and welcoming them backwhenever they are ready to come.
On simplistic interpretation...It's risky to take any one passage as toorepresentative, and I know this happens from allsides. But as an example, your passage cited below tosupport the fact that Jesus judges (John 5), actuallysays that the Father does not judge, but that only theSon does. What? Then, does this mean that God does*not* judge? Well, yes, on its face. I'm sure manypeople have bent over backwards to reconcile this withother passages, but I'm not sure why they bother.
Thetake-home point I get is to be a lot more humble aboutinterpretation, seeing through a glass darkly and allthat. Anyone out there claiming there is *ONE RIGHTINTERPRETATION* and that *THEY KNOW IT* is full ofthemselves, not the Holy Spirit. There may indeed beone right interpretation of every part of the Bible,but I'm not sure any of us can fully know it.As it happens, I agree with you that the dialectic ofa God who shows mercy and a God who judges seemsreadily apparent in scripture. Yet that doesn't meanwe can know how or where that judgment is occurring,nor should we try to participate in it. (And I thinkthe key point here is that by claiming to know whereit exists, we are actively participating in it.) "Judge not, lest ye be judged." "take out the log inyour own eye" etc. etc. God may judge the wicked, butI don't think any of us is capable of unbiasedlyidentifying who God considers wicked, unless it isclaiming our own wickedness.
I certainly don't think that a singing "prophet" fromSouth Africa who makes vague Nostradamus-likeprophecies and is considered by many *conservative*Christians to be a "New Age prophet", is the voice ofGod in the 21st century. (Did you know, Steve, thatthe "prophet" you cited that started this whole thingoff has been criticized for not preaching the need forrepentance?! http://letusreason.org/Popteac14.htmIn light of this discussion, that's highly ironic.) But this is all just my opinion.Apologies to the peacemakers among us for all thistheologizing.Shalom,Dave
I think this "theologizing" is significant, because it gets to the heart of why we do peacemaking, and how we do it.
If repentance is not necessary for forgiveness, then we do peacemaking because it is the "right" thing to do, and we accomplish peacemaking by helping people see other people's sides. If repentance is necessary for forgiveness, then Jesus is essential in peacemaking-- not just to tell us to do it, but to accomplish the repentance necessary for peace. This is because repentance is impossible without God's Spirit to empower us to repent. Creating peace between people (especially individuals) is easy compared to helping people live a right lifestyle before God. Only God can do that.
As far as my arrogance, I apologize for that. I AM arrogant at times and I will do my best, with God's help, to alleviate that. However, hubris-- a terrible sin in Greek morality-- isn't a terrible sin biblically. Yes, pride is rejected as evil, and humility is certainly exalted. But pride is described in Scripture as attempting to take a higher social position on one's own power and authority, and not being grateful to the one who gives one position (namely God). Humility is described as taking a low position, and doing the actions of that position-- such as Jesus enacting the role of a slave in John 13. Thus Jesus, Paul, Peter, the Pharisees, James, etc all exhibited hubris, and yet were considered very humble. And their hubris was no sin.
The problem with hermeneutics is unbelievably huge. From my understanding, the key to understanding Jesus' message is to look at what Jesus' says, in the first century cultural context. Like you said, Dave, it is not a matter of taking one verse and looking at that, and then deciding what it says, solo. It is a matter of looking at a consistent body of literature, and determining the message as a whole. The core of my understanding, my belief, is the synoptic gospels. I will use the rest of the New Testament to assist with details, but Jesus' message-- as a whole-- is found in the synoptic gospels. I will not take just a part of it-- such as just love, or just purity-- and say it represents the whole. I must accept the whole, or else I do not have any of it.
I have attached a file listing verses that show that God's acceptance of us, as well as the church's acceptance, is dependant on repentance, according to the gospels, with supporting verses in the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament. As I said before, this forgiveness is not the same as God's general "love" of all humanity. Forgiveness is equivalent to being welcome in God's presence, having the blessings of God's kingdom, and no longer having God's punishment. Forgiveness is the equivalent of salvation. I didn't put it all on this email, because I didn't want to make it longer than it already is. But if you are interested in my full argument on repentance, it is there.
Reading over your email once more, I wanted to talk about a couple more things:
First of all, I think that there really IS "one right interpretation"-- and I think you do, too. Otherwise, you could accept that God can either require repentance for forgiveness or not require repentance for forgiveness. That either interpretation is acceptable. However, we are having this discussion because we feel that one interpretation is correct. That's the way thinking works-- God will not give us a contradiction. Interpretation is trying to understand that which isn't clear to everyone.
However, our interpretation must be based on evidence. We cannot say, "I think that Jesus supported war" based on no evidence. And the statement cannot be supported by saying that Jesus accepted soldiers, welcoming them with salvation, either. There is inadequate evidence for that interpretation. I think we all agree with that. And we also agree that Jesus' statement "Love your enemies" speaks against Christian participation in war. Others would disagree with that. But is it just a "matter of interpretation"? Or is there evidence one way or the other? Well, we can look at other passages of Jesus to confirm one way or the other, and we can look at the example of his life-- whether he made choices for war or against it. And we can look at the rest of the New Testament to see if that body of literature supports our theory or stands against it. And looking at the New Testament as a whole-- interestingly enough, in opposition to the Old Testament-- that it stands against the Christian participation in war. The position may need to be nuanced, but it stands firm.
Even so, we can look at Jesus' message and life as a whole concerning the issue of repentance and forgiveness. We know for a fact that Jesus' message is deeply concerned with repentance. His basic message, according to Matthew is to prepare for the coming kingdom of God by repentance. When asked forthrightly about how to gain God's kingdom/eternal life, he responded by saying to obey the ten commandments, to sell one's possessions and give to the poor, and to follow Jesus. He did not say, "There's nothing for you to do-- just accept God's forgiveness." And he was very concerned that those who did not repent would be punished eternally (Luke 10:13; Luke 13:1-5).
In the passage we were dealing with (Luke 15), the Pharisees were complaining about Jesus because he was eating with "sinners"-- those who have failed the covenant treaty with God through their continuing disobedience. They didn't want Jesus eating with them because it implied covenant brotherhood with them-- which the Pharisees rejected. This brotherhood was tanamount to "forgiveness"-- acceptance, despite their past sin. Jesus then tells three stories about God, who goes out of his way to seek out and accept certain people. But in all three, Jesus qualifies the acceptance to sinners who repent, not sinners in general. God seeks the sinners in general, but only accepts the ones who repent.
Theologically, we have to say that repentance is difficult, even impossible, in many cases. It is for this reason that in Jesus we can receive the Spirit who will assist us. But repentance is first of all turning to God, and receiving his assistance in overcoming sin.
Those who do violence and kill another are in sin. Those who continually threaten and do harm to others are in sin. And we need to warn them about the judgment that is coming on them because of their sin, even as Jesus did-- "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." And we also talk to them about the God who loves them so much that they will forgive their sin, if they would but turn to Him and turn away from that sin. Then the murders will be forgiven. The soldiers will be accepted by God. The warmongers will be converted. And Jesus will have created peace. Not just through carte blanche "forgiveness". But through the power of forgiveness and repentance in unison.
Steve Kimes
It seems like some of your assertions are approachingself-righteousness. I doubt you mean them to, butthat's how I read them.
In responding to Larry Eby about the judgment of NewOrleans, you said, "I understand that this seemscontradictory. It is not. If you can't understandit, I respectfully recommend that you meditate on it. Otherwise the Bible and the God of Jesus just makes nosense."And in your response to me, you said, "I understandthat you have probably heard quite a bit of preachingon the prodigal son, but, of course, what we shouldmost be interested in is what Jesus' point is, not anygiven pastor's point."The first example demonstrates an attitude that if wedon't understand the Bible the way you do, it "justmakes no sense". And we should all endeavor to takethe time to understand it the way you do.
Maybe youcan't see it making sense another way, but thatdoesn't mean it can't make sense for others.In the second example, the implicit attitude is thatwhat you are about to exposit *is* Jesus' point. Thisis hubris. Every preacher I've ever heard is"interested in Jesus' point" and is attempting todiscern it. The way you pose "any given pastor'spoint" against "Jesus' point" is specious. For inthis age, 2000 years after he walked the roads ofGalilee, none of us has perfect knowledge of Jesus'point. We're all interpreting. If you cast yourinterpretation as "Jesus' point", this doesn't changethe fact that it's still your interpretation.
In fact, I think the passages you described thataccompany the prodigal story actually support *my*interpretation, in that they say *nothing* about Godor the angels in heaven "accepting" the repentant onesafter having rejected them before. They simplydescribe the joy and rejoicing in heaven now that theones who were lost have repented. Remember, I saidthat repentance is critical to our being able toaccept God's forgiveness. I assert, however, andthese passages don't contradict, that our repentanceis not a prerequisite or requirement for God to acceptus.I don't see how it could be otherwise. For why wouldanyone *want* to repent, if they are facing only thewrath (non-acceptance) of an angry Father God. Howcould they trust that God would -- bing! -- becomeimmediately loving and welcoming only *once we decidedto be good*? Rather, I think people repent becausetheir brokenness allows them to recognize that God isstill there, loving them and welcoming them backwhenever they are ready to come.
On simplistic interpretation...It's risky to take any one passage as toorepresentative, and I know this happens from allsides. But as an example, your passage cited below tosupport the fact that Jesus judges (John 5), actuallysays that the Father does not judge, but that only theSon does. What? Then, does this mean that God does*not* judge? Well, yes, on its face. I'm sure manypeople have bent over backwards to reconcile this withother passages, but I'm not sure why they bother.
Thetake-home point I get is to be a lot more humble aboutinterpretation, seeing through a glass darkly and allthat. Anyone out there claiming there is *ONE RIGHTINTERPRETATION* and that *THEY KNOW IT* is full ofthemselves, not the Holy Spirit. There may indeed beone right interpretation of every part of the Bible,but I'm not sure any of us can fully know it.As it happens, I agree with you that the dialectic ofa God who shows mercy and a God who judges seemsreadily apparent in scripture. Yet that doesn't meanwe can know how or where that judgment is occurring,nor should we try to participate in it. (And I thinkthe key point here is that by claiming to know whereit exists, we are actively participating in it.) "Judge not, lest ye be judged." "take out the log inyour own eye" etc. etc. God may judge the wicked, butI don't think any of us is capable of unbiasedlyidentifying who God considers wicked, unless it isclaiming our own wickedness.
I certainly don't think that a singing "prophet" fromSouth Africa who makes vague Nostradamus-likeprophecies and is considered by many *conservative*Christians to be a "New Age prophet", is the voice ofGod in the 21st century. (Did you know, Steve, thatthe "prophet" you cited that started this whole thingoff has been criticized for not preaching the need forrepentance?! http://letusreason.org/Popteac14.htmIn light of this discussion, that's highly ironic.) But this is all just my opinion.Apologies to the peacemakers among us for all thistheologizing.Shalom,Dave
I think this "theologizing" is significant, because it gets to the heart of why we do peacemaking, and how we do it.
If repentance is not necessary for forgiveness, then we do peacemaking because it is the "right" thing to do, and we accomplish peacemaking by helping people see other people's sides. If repentance is necessary for forgiveness, then Jesus is essential in peacemaking-- not just to tell us to do it, but to accomplish the repentance necessary for peace. This is because repentance is impossible without God's Spirit to empower us to repent. Creating peace between people (especially individuals) is easy compared to helping people live a right lifestyle before God. Only God can do that.
As far as my arrogance, I apologize for that. I AM arrogant at times and I will do my best, with God's help, to alleviate that. However, hubris-- a terrible sin in Greek morality-- isn't a terrible sin biblically. Yes, pride is rejected as evil, and humility is certainly exalted. But pride is described in Scripture as attempting to take a higher social position on one's own power and authority, and not being grateful to the one who gives one position (namely God). Humility is described as taking a low position, and doing the actions of that position-- such as Jesus enacting the role of a slave in John 13. Thus Jesus, Paul, Peter, the Pharisees, James, etc all exhibited hubris, and yet were considered very humble. And their hubris was no sin.
The problem with hermeneutics is unbelievably huge. From my understanding, the key to understanding Jesus' message is to look at what Jesus' says, in the first century cultural context. Like you said, Dave, it is not a matter of taking one verse and looking at that, and then deciding what it says, solo. It is a matter of looking at a consistent body of literature, and determining the message as a whole. The core of my understanding, my belief, is the synoptic gospels. I will use the rest of the New Testament to assist with details, but Jesus' message-- as a whole-- is found in the synoptic gospels. I will not take just a part of it-- such as just love, or just purity-- and say it represents the whole. I must accept the whole, or else I do not have any of it.
I have attached a file listing verses that show that God's acceptance of us, as well as the church's acceptance, is dependant on repentance, according to the gospels, with supporting verses in the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament. As I said before, this forgiveness is not the same as God's general "love" of all humanity. Forgiveness is equivalent to being welcome in God's presence, having the blessings of God's kingdom, and no longer having God's punishment. Forgiveness is the equivalent of salvation. I didn't put it all on this email, because I didn't want to make it longer than it already is. But if you are interested in my full argument on repentance, it is there.
Reading over your email once more, I wanted to talk about a couple more things:
First of all, I think that there really IS "one right interpretation"-- and I think you do, too. Otherwise, you could accept that God can either require repentance for forgiveness or not require repentance for forgiveness. That either interpretation is acceptable. However, we are having this discussion because we feel that one interpretation is correct. That's the way thinking works-- God will not give us a contradiction. Interpretation is trying to understand that which isn't clear to everyone.
However, our interpretation must be based on evidence. We cannot say, "I think that Jesus supported war" based on no evidence. And the statement cannot be supported by saying that Jesus accepted soldiers, welcoming them with salvation, either. There is inadequate evidence for that interpretation. I think we all agree with that. And we also agree that Jesus' statement "Love your enemies" speaks against Christian participation in war. Others would disagree with that. But is it just a "matter of interpretation"? Or is there evidence one way or the other? Well, we can look at other passages of Jesus to confirm one way or the other, and we can look at the example of his life-- whether he made choices for war or against it. And we can look at the rest of the New Testament to see if that body of literature supports our theory or stands against it. And looking at the New Testament as a whole-- interestingly enough, in opposition to the Old Testament-- that it stands against the Christian participation in war. The position may need to be nuanced, but it stands firm.
Even so, we can look at Jesus' message and life as a whole concerning the issue of repentance and forgiveness. We know for a fact that Jesus' message is deeply concerned with repentance. His basic message, according to Matthew is to prepare for the coming kingdom of God by repentance. When asked forthrightly about how to gain God's kingdom/eternal life, he responded by saying to obey the ten commandments, to sell one's possessions and give to the poor, and to follow Jesus. He did not say, "There's nothing for you to do-- just accept God's forgiveness." And he was very concerned that those who did not repent would be punished eternally (Luke 10:13; Luke 13:1-5).
In the passage we were dealing with (Luke 15), the Pharisees were complaining about Jesus because he was eating with "sinners"-- those who have failed the covenant treaty with God through their continuing disobedience. They didn't want Jesus eating with them because it implied covenant brotherhood with them-- which the Pharisees rejected. This brotherhood was tanamount to "forgiveness"-- acceptance, despite their past sin. Jesus then tells three stories about God, who goes out of his way to seek out and accept certain people. But in all three, Jesus qualifies the acceptance to sinners who repent, not sinners in general. God seeks the sinners in general, but only accepts the ones who repent.
Theologically, we have to say that repentance is difficult, even impossible, in many cases. It is for this reason that in Jesus we can receive the Spirit who will assist us. But repentance is first of all turning to God, and receiving his assistance in overcoming sin.
Those who do violence and kill another are in sin. Those who continually threaten and do harm to others are in sin. And we need to warn them about the judgment that is coming on them because of their sin, even as Jesus did-- "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." And we also talk to them about the God who loves them so much that they will forgive their sin, if they would but turn to Him and turn away from that sin. Then the murders will be forgiven. The soldiers will be accepted by God. The warmongers will be converted. And Jesus will have created peace. Not just through carte blanche "forgiveness". But through the power of forgiveness and repentance in unison.
Steve Kimes
Monday, December 05, 2005
What Should We Do With Prophets?
What is Prophecy?
There are these people out there and they are obnoxious. They get in your face, and say things you aren’t comfortable with and often they claim to be speaking for God. Those who want to say something positive would typically say, “Oh, he’s a prophet” (inevitably, the prophet is a “he”). But just because a person has a “hard message” does that make them a prophet?
Not necessarily. A “prophet” in Scripture is specifically someone who has a message directly from God through God’s Spirit. This isn’t just a message from the Bible or a rewriting of a Bible text. It is something one hears from God directly. Not everyone hears God’s voice in the church, nor does everyone who hears God’s voice necessarily have to speak his messages to others. But a prophet receives a message from God and then he or she must go and speak it to the ones God commanded them to tell. Prophecies could be in dreams, visions, voices or just listening to a silent voice. But it is clear, and it is clearly from God.
Do We Need Prophecies?
The Bible says we do. God often spoke to prophets in the past, and Moses exclaimed, “I wish that all of God’s people would be prophets!” (Numbers 11:29). All of Jesus’ followers receive God’s spirit and all of them have something from God’s spirit to share with others (I Corinthians 12:3-4). Some people are led by the Spirit to serve, others to give, others to teach. Prophecy is one of those “gifts” that some have received from the Spirit.
While prophecies are uncomfortable for many, Paul says that prophecy is essential. He calls it the most essential work of the Spirit for the community of believers. Why? Prophecy, more than any other service to the church, can point out the weaknesses and the issues the Lord wants a particular congregation to work on. The Lord can speak both encouragement and rebuke clearly and immediately without confusion or as many interpretation problems.
How should we respond to a prophet?
If a prophet has a message to give to a church, they should be allowed to do so. This may not be comfortable for many, but Scripture tells us clearly not to “quench the Spirit or despise prophetic utterances.” (I Thessalonians 5:19-20). Prophecy may be a hard pill to swallow, but it is necessary from the Spirit. Such a prophecy should be shared at an appropriate time determined by the leader of the worship time, so any prophet should ask for an opportunity to speak and not be upset if they are asked to wait. Only two or three prophecies per service so that others may share what they have from the Lord as well (I Corinthians 14:29-33). The prophet should speak the exact words of the prophecy and allow the people to test and interpret the prophecy. “No prophecy is of private interpretation” says the Scripture, so the prophet should not interpret the prophecy themselves before they give it to the congregation (I Peter 1:20).
Testing the spirits
After a prophecy has been given, then the spirit of the prophet must be tested. There are many spirits, and not all are the Holy Spirit come from God. We must test every word we receive from a spirit.
We can know if a message is not from the Spirit of God if:
It encourages people to sin
It encourages people away from the God of Jesus (Deuteronomy 13)
It slanders someone with an evil act that is not already publicly known. (Matthew 18:15)
It serves the personal interests of the prophet.
It is a message to the whole people of God, but only one group of God’s people has received it. (I Corinthians 14:36)
Another indication that a prophet is sent from God is if they speak a prophecy about a future event, and the prophecy does not come true as stated. If a prophet is inaccurate about the future, then Scripture says “You need not fear that one.” This means that they are not a true prophet from God (Deuteronomy 18:22)
However, a prophecy is more likely true if:
a. The prophet is humble before the Lord and God’s people, and shares with love and gentleness. (Galatians 5:22-23)
b. The message the prophet shares is accurate with the Bible. It does not have to be accurate with popular theology, but it must be accurate with the message of Jesus in the New Testament. (John 14:26)
c. The message leads people to godly repentance, drawing them closer to a relationship with the Lord.
How should we respond to Prophecy?
If a prophecy and the prophet has been tested and has passed, then the word of the Lord is to “fear that prophet”. We must do as the prophecy says. We do not need to tell other people to obey the prophecy, unless they were given it personally. But we need to do it, for it is the word of the Lord for us. If we do not listen to the prophet who spoke truly, the Lord will judge us for not listening to Him. (Deuteronomy 18:18-19; Ezekiel 3:19)
There are these people out there and they are obnoxious. They get in your face, and say things you aren’t comfortable with and often they claim to be speaking for God. Those who want to say something positive would typically say, “Oh, he’s a prophet” (inevitably, the prophet is a “he”). But just because a person has a “hard message” does that make them a prophet?
Not necessarily. A “prophet” in Scripture is specifically someone who has a message directly from God through God’s Spirit. This isn’t just a message from the Bible or a rewriting of a Bible text. It is something one hears from God directly. Not everyone hears God’s voice in the church, nor does everyone who hears God’s voice necessarily have to speak his messages to others. But a prophet receives a message from God and then he or she must go and speak it to the ones God commanded them to tell. Prophecies could be in dreams, visions, voices or just listening to a silent voice. But it is clear, and it is clearly from God.
Do We Need Prophecies?
The Bible says we do. God often spoke to prophets in the past, and Moses exclaimed, “I wish that all of God’s people would be prophets!” (Numbers 11:29). All of Jesus’ followers receive God’s spirit and all of them have something from God’s spirit to share with others (I Corinthians 12:3-4). Some people are led by the Spirit to serve, others to give, others to teach. Prophecy is one of those “gifts” that some have received from the Spirit.
While prophecies are uncomfortable for many, Paul says that prophecy is essential. He calls it the most essential work of the Spirit for the community of believers. Why? Prophecy, more than any other service to the church, can point out the weaknesses and the issues the Lord wants a particular congregation to work on. The Lord can speak both encouragement and rebuke clearly and immediately without confusion or as many interpretation problems.
How should we respond to a prophet?
If a prophet has a message to give to a church, they should be allowed to do so. This may not be comfortable for many, but Scripture tells us clearly not to “quench the Spirit or despise prophetic utterances.” (I Thessalonians 5:19-20). Prophecy may be a hard pill to swallow, but it is necessary from the Spirit. Such a prophecy should be shared at an appropriate time determined by the leader of the worship time, so any prophet should ask for an opportunity to speak and not be upset if they are asked to wait. Only two or three prophecies per service so that others may share what they have from the Lord as well (I Corinthians 14:29-33). The prophet should speak the exact words of the prophecy and allow the people to test and interpret the prophecy. “No prophecy is of private interpretation” says the Scripture, so the prophet should not interpret the prophecy themselves before they give it to the congregation (I Peter 1:20).
Testing the spirits
After a prophecy has been given, then the spirit of the prophet must be tested. There are many spirits, and not all are the Holy Spirit come from God. We must test every word we receive from a spirit.
We can know if a message is not from the Spirit of God if:
It encourages people to sin
It encourages people away from the God of Jesus (Deuteronomy 13)
It slanders someone with an evil act that is not already publicly known. (Matthew 18:15)
It serves the personal interests of the prophet.
It is a message to the whole people of God, but only one group of God’s people has received it. (I Corinthians 14:36)
Another indication that a prophet is sent from God is if they speak a prophecy about a future event, and the prophecy does not come true as stated. If a prophet is inaccurate about the future, then Scripture says “You need not fear that one.” This means that they are not a true prophet from God (Deuteronomy 18:22)
However, a prophecy is more likely true if:
a. The prophet is humble before the Lord and God’s people, and shares with love and gentleness. (Galatians 5:22-23)
b. The message the prophet shares is accurate with the Bible. It does not have to be accurate with popular theology, but it must be accurate with the message of Jesus in the New Testament. (John 14:26)
c. The message leads people to godly repentance, drawing them closer to a relationship with the Lord.
How should we respond to Prophecy?
If a prophecy and the prophet has been tested and has passed, then the word of the Lord is to “fear that prophet”. We must do as the prophecy says. We do not need to tell other people to obey the prophecy, unless they were given it personally. But we need to do it, for it is the word of the Lord for us. If we do not listen to the prophet who spoke truly, the Lord will judge us for not listening to Him. (Deuteronomy 18:18-19; Ezekiel 3:19)
Discussion on New Orleans and God
This discussion took place on the Peace and Justice Forum of the PNMC:
Thank you for this information. I know some of us may not be comfortable with this or with the idea that God speaks prophetically today such as this. I am most concerned when we who call ourselves followers of The Way disregard the written Word of God. I for one was very thankful for our conference Bible teacher, William Higgins, when he responded to J. Denny Weaver on the “Workshop on a Non-violent Atonement” as J. Denny simply disregarded many scriptures to propagate a theory which ignores that God Himself provided the sacrifice for our sins and God alone determined the manner in which it would happen. God alone (Deut) established that there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. Isn’t it marvelous that Jesus shed his blood for the whole world so there is no longer a need for the blood of others to be shed! Byron Shenk
“I found those 2,000 verses on the poor. How did I miss that? I went to Bible college, two seminaries, and I got a doctorate. How did I miss God's compassion for the poor? I was not seeing all the purposes of God. The church is the body of Christ. The hands and feet have been amputated and we're just a big mouth, known more for what we're against."
Steve, this something you sent some time ago. How do you reconcile the two? I can agree more with the above quotation than with the essence of the prophecy. I have spent much of my life under the leftovers of being taught that God is a vengeful God rather than the loving God that sent us Jesus to show to us what is a cross-bearing life that we are challenged to follow other than in name. But to me that does not mean condemning people. It seems to me that Jesus might have felt more at home on Bourbon Street in N.O. than in the temples of the megachurches or perhaps in some of the smugness in the Mennonite and other well-known evangelical churches that wish to remain orthodox above every thing else.
I admire you, Steve, for your work with the homeless. Would that some more of us would feel the same passion. So it saddens me a bit that your are distracted by prophecies that wherever their source seem to be in disagreement with the loving God incarnated in the loving Jesus and who seeks to be incarnated in us.
Larry Eby
Thanks for your response, Larry. I understand your confusion. It would be difficult to reconcile a God of full mercy with a God who judges. But Jesus' God is a God of mercy who assists everyone (Matt 5:44), and also a God who judges the wicked, especially the oppressors and the hypocrites (Matt 23; Luke 13:1-5). And God is the same now as then.
I read last month an article by Tony Campolo about how Katrina couldn't be God's judgment because the poor were the ones worst hurt by the hurricane, and the poor are God's people, he couldn't be judging them. While I firmly agree with Dr. Campolo that the poor are God's people, I respectfully disagree with him that the hurricane isn't God's judgment based on Amos 6.
Yes, the poor were terribly hurt by this. But the poor in New Orleans were hurt, not because of God's judgment, but because the wealthy and powerful in New Orleans and Louisiana did not provide for the poor, what they could easily provide-- transportation to escape. All of the poor would have left, staying in shelters somewhere else, if only it had been provided them.
As I have written previously, the powerful didn't help the poor simply out of their ignorance, not out of hatred of the poor. However, it is the responsibility of those who have resources and wealth to provide for the needs of those who do not have. And the poor being harmed in New Orleans is the result of the attitude of focusing one's compassion only on "one's own".
I understand that this seems contradictory. It is not. If you can't understand it, I respectfully recommend that you meditate on it. Otherwise the Bible and the God of Jesus just makes no sense.
Steve Kimes
While I appreciate your work with the homeless, Steve, I can't let your interpretation of prophecy pass without a comment. My first question is how do you know that New Orleans is or was more deserving of judgment than any other American City? Just because New Orleans is well known for its drunken debauchery doesn't mean that God automatically regards that city as more sinful and deserving of judgment. What about all the American suburbs filled with self-satisfied people who are ignoring the needs of the poor? Aren't they equally as sinful? Why didn't the hurricane hit them instead?Secondly, if God really intended to make New Orleans the target of his judgment , then why didn't the French Quarter get destroyed? One can make a very convincing argument that it is the most visibly sinful section of the city. Since the flooding barely touched the French Quarter, I must conclude that God either has a very bad aim or else that he intended to target the poor black sinners of the Ninth Ward and leave the wealthy residents of the French Quarter relatively unscathed.In my opinion, it's this kind of nonsense we get into whenever we fallible humans try to decide who is or who is not deserving of God's judgment. I prefer to focus on my own foibles and leave the judging to God.
An alternative interpretation is that God lets us suffer the consequences of our own stupidity. Building a city on ground that is well below sea level and then destroying the wetlands that protect the city is the ultimate in arrogance and hubris. Perhaps the message we are to receive from God is that it is folly to think we humans can control either God's creation or even our own destiny.Love in Christ, Joe Blowers
We only can know whether or not a catastrophe, like tsunamis, earthquakes or hurricanes, or military attacks like the attack on New York city, or America's attack on Afganistan are naturally caused, or divinely caused through the testimony of prophets. Bad things happen on earth that are not necessarily the hand of God (though I believe He is still sovereign over all). In the old testament, disasters and military invasions happened all the time like they do today. But it took the prophets to interpret the meaning of the disaster or military invasion.So the issues today are...a). does God still judge through military invasions and disasters. not all catastrophes, but specific ones.b). are there still prophets functioning?c). how do we test the prophets?These questions need to be answered generally before we can deal with specific events. If a person has no criteria for testing prophets then they'll blindly accept every prophecy they hear. If a person doesn't swallow the notion that God still judges through events that affect both the guilty and the innocent, then they won't accept a prophetic interpretation of an event.Personally, I believe that God does still judge this way and I believe that there are prophets still functioning. The only one I give attention to is David Wilkerson who ministers in New York whose heart is broken for New York pleading that they would repent and turn back to God. I know nothing of the prophet that Steve quoted. I believed that the New Orleans disaster could have been the hand of God just as i believed that the attack on the twin towers and the attack on Afghanistan could be the hand of God. But without confirmation of a prophet I trusted, I wasn't willing to commit to such, or to preach such. So where I struggle is with c). how do we test the prophets. The messages of prophets are often hard for us to accept because they make us very uncomfortable by railing against the status quo. And the temptation is to pridefully accept the message of a prophet when it is pointing at everyone but me. But if they are doing God's work, they will make _me_ uncomfortable. Or they will cause my heart to break for the people who under God's judgement.While I don't question the appropriateness of this subject to this forum, I wonder as a followup how this issue impacts us from a peace and justice perspective. Do we only use the term "justice" when it speaks of fair treatment of the oppressed and not use it to speak of appropriate measures for the oppressors? Would it not be a measure of peace to warn a group that they are susceptible to God's judgement if they do not repent? Was Jonah a peacemaker? I think he was. It seems that we only do peacemaking when it is testifying to the government to not use military action. But were we peacemakers by warning Sadaam Hussein that if he did not repent and turn from his sins, God was going to bring judgement on him and his nation. I think peacemaking is both sides of the coin, though we only give attention to one.
Jeffrey C. Long
Jeff, I think this is a very good point. I think that as peacemakers, we do not have the right to take the measure of justice against oppressors ourselves. We do not harm our enemies. However, we have the responsibility to warn oppressors that they would be judged by God. We don't necessarily have the responsibility to force change to oppressors. If people want to do that, it might be okay, but the more humble position is to speak to them God's truth and allow them to make their own decisions.
BTW, I do have a teaching which lays out how to test a prophet.
Steve K
1. I never said that New Orleans was worse than other cities. I said that God declared that a city isn't destroyed without his plan, and that he doesn't do it unless a prophecy is declared ahead of time to that effect. Since there WAS a prophecy to this effect, and the timing was right, I believe that we can confirm that it was done by God.
2. New Orleans, however, is a good target because they had a number of issues: They promoted sorcery, they also ignored their poor, and what was worse, they promoted the abuse of Christian tradition as an excuse for drunken debauchery-- Mardi Gras in particular.
3. I am not the one second-guessing God's plan or work. I have evidence to that effect. Where is your evidence that God does not act that way? What texts prove that God would never act in judgment? It seems that the requirement of proof is on the side saying "God wouldn't act that way"-- since we have clear evidence all throughout the Scripture that He does.
Steve Kimes
Of the answers I've read so far, I find that I agree most with Joe. Are we afraid to trust in a loving God who, as in the story of the prodigal, allows us to go our own way, but is waiting, not to hand out the punishment we deserve, but with open arms to welcome us back? This God, described by Jesus, is the one I choose to follow.
Tom Brenneman
Jesus prophesied destruction as well.
Jeffrey C. Long
The one thing that many people don't recognize when the use the prodigal son as their paradigm of salvation is that the prodigal repented of his sin first.
The paradigm of the prodigal son is as follows:
a. Rejection of the Father
b. Lifestyle of sin
c. Destruction due to lifestyle of sin
d. Realization of salvation of the Father
e. Return to Father
f. Confession/Repentance
g. Acceptance by the Father
New Orleans actually fits the prodigal son paradigm-- it's just that they are in the destruction part of the story. Some individuals are in the "realization" stage. But all of them still have the opportunity to repent and be accepted by the Father.
Jesus and Paul and Peter and the whole bible recognizes that God sometimes initiates destruction in people's lives. The New Testament paradigm is that God does it in order to save some people. This is certainly God's purpose for New Orleans.
Steve K.
Steve, your interpretation depends on what you mean by"first". I have heard this preached differently(multiple times). The father accepted the prodigalson before the son did any confession or repentance,as evidenced by the father's running to the son andembracing him upon the mere sight of him. It was*after* this acceptance that the son made hisconfession. Yes, the son had *planned* to repent,which is what led him home. But the father didn'trequire the words; he was just overjoyed to see hisson back home!This is a subtle but key distinction in thisdiscussion. And it is one that has always bothered meabout those who supposedly preach "salvation bygrace". Even though they profess this claim thatworks are not required, they still require the "work"of repentance prior to acceptance by God. In otherwords, they say that God won't love or accept us untiland unless we repent.In contrast, if God's love for us is constant and hiswelcome is always available, the "requirement" ofrepentance is only for our sakes. In other words,*we* can't accept God's love for us until we re-turnto God and recognize that God is there waiting for us,arms open wide. Repentance is crucial, but notbecause God requires it before he'll love us.
Dave
I appreciate your comments, and this discussion is helpful, I believe.
I understand that you have probably heard quite a bit of preaching on the prodigal son, but, of course, what we should most be interested in is what Jesus' point is, not any given pastor's point.
Jesus had given three parables about acceptance in Luke 15, and the main point is the same with all three. Jesus' explanation is given in this way:
"I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance." and "In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Luke 15:7, 10). If one looked at each of these parables-- that of the woman looking for a coin and a man looking for a sheep-- no indication of repentance is given. But Jesus inserts repentance into his interpretive statement of them.
In the prodigal son, the son did repent before the father accepted him. On the human level, the father would not have known about that repentance. All that is well and good. But we need to accept Jesus' interpretation, not restrict it to human limitation. Jesus' interpretation, and the reason the son is given a paragraph to describe his repentance before he reaches his father, is that the repentance is a pre-requisite of the father's acceptance.
This does not mean that God does not love everyone. Of course he does. He sent his son to die for everyone in the world because he loved the whole world-- Hitler, Stalin, Herod, everyone (John 3:16). And he offers rain and food to everyone, without exception to their sin (Matt. 5:45). But he does not offer his blessings, his kingdom, his full promises to everyone. Some are accepted, and some are judged (John 5). And some are judged in this life, by God's hand (Acts 5). That is how God works.
God is the God of mercy and forgiveness. And he is the God of judgment and vengeance. If God never gave vengeance, then it would be foolish for us to be sacrificed for peace. The way of the cross is founded on the fact that God judges the wicked. And those who do not repent will be judged (e.g. Luke 6:24-26; Luke 13:1-5).
And here's something that perhaps you didn't notice-- that even our forgiveness of other's can be limited by whether the sinner repents or not (Matt 18:15-17; Luke 17:3-4).
By the way, I never called myself a "grace" theologian. I am just interested in teaching what Jesus taught, doing what Jesus did-- no more, no less. To the degree Jesus showed grace, so will I. Inasmuch as Jesus limited grace, so will I. Jesus is the Savior, not I, so I must depend on Him to show me who to declare salvation to. And I still find that I usually have to preach "do not judge" and "forgive" more often than "rebuke the sinning brother".
Steve K
Thank you for this information. I know some of us may not be comfortable with this or with the idea that God speaks prophetically today such as this. I am most concerned when we who call ourselves followers of The Way disregard the written Word of God. I for one was very thankful for our conference Bible teacher, William Higgins, when he responded to J. Denny Weaver on the “Workshop on a Non-violent Atonement” as J. Denny simply disregarded many scriptures to propagate a theory which ignores that God Himself provided the sacrifice for our sins and God alone determined the manner in which it would happen. God alone (Deut) established that there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. Isn’t it marvelous that Jesus shed his blood for the whole world so there is no longer a need for the blood of others to be shed! Byron Shenk
“I found those 2,000 verses on the poor. How did I miss that? I went to Bible college, two seminaries, and I got a doctorate. How did I miss God's compassion for the poor? I was not seeing all the purposes of God. The church is the body of Christ. The hands and feet have been amputated and we're just a big mouth, known more for what we're against."
Steve, this something you sent some time ago. How do you reconcile the two? I can agree more with the above quotation than with the essence of the prophecy. I have spent much of my life under the leftovers of being taught that God is a vengeful God rather than the loving God that sent us Jesus to show to us what is a cross-bearing life that we are challenged to follow other than in name. But to me that does not mean condemning people. It seems to me that Jesus might have felt more at home on Bourbon Street in N.O. than in the temples of the megachurches or perhaps in some of the smugness in the Mennonite and other well-known evangelical churches that wish to remain orthodox above every thing else.
I admire you, Steve, for your work with the homeless. Would that some more of us would feel the same passion. So it saddens me a bit that your are distracted by prophecies that wherever their source seem to be in disagreement with the loving God incarnated in the loving Jesus and who seeks to be incarnated in us.
Larry Eby
Thanks for your response, Larry. I understand your confusion. It would be difficult to reconcile a God of full mercy with a God who judges. But Jesus' God is a God of mercy who assists everyone (Matt 5:44), and also a God who judges the wicked, especially the oppressors and the hypocrites (Matt 23; Luke 13:1-5). And God is the same now as then.
I read last month an article by Tony Campolo about how Katrina couldn't be God's judgment because the poor were the ones worst hurt by the hurricane, and the poor are God's people, he couldn't be judging them. While I firmly agree with Dr. Campolo that the poor are God's people, I respectfully disagree with him that the hurricane isn't God's judgment based on Amos 6.
Yes, the poor were terribly hurt by this. But the poor in New Orleans were hurt, not because of God's judgment, but because the wealthy and powerful in New Orleans and Louisiana did not provide for the poor, what they could easily provide-- transportation to escape. All of the poor would have left, staying in shelters somewhere else, if only it had been provided them.
As I have written previously, the powerful didn't help the poor simply out of their ignorance, not out of hatred of the poor. However, it is the responsibility of those who have resources and wealth to provide for the needs of those who do not have. And the poor being harmed in New Orleans is the result of the attitude of focusing one's compassion only on "one's own".
I understand that this seems contradictory. It is not. If you can't understand it, I respectfully recommend that you meditate on it. Otherwise the Bible and the God of Jesus just makes no sense.
Steve Kimes
While I appreciate your work with the homeless, Steve, I can't let your interpretation of prophecy pass without a comment. My first question is how do you know that New Orleans is or was more deserving of judgment than any other American City? Just because New Orleans is well known for its drunken debauchery doesn't mean that God automatically regards that city as more sinful and deserving of judgment. What about all the American suburbs filled with self-satisfied people who are ignoring the needs of the poor? Aren't they equally as sinful? Why didn't the hurricane hit them instead?Secondly, if God really intended to make New Orleans the target of his judgment , then why didn't the French Quarter get destroyed? One can make a very convincing argument that it is the most visibly sinful section of the city. Since the flooding barely touched the French Quarter, I must conclude that God either has a very bad aim or else that he intended to target the poor black sinners of the Ninth Ward and leave the wealthy residents of the French Quarter relatively unscathed.In my opinion, it's this kind of nonsense we get into whenever we fallible humans try to decide who is or who is not deserving of God's judgment. I prefer to focus on my own foibles and leave the judging to God.
An alternative interpretation is that God lets us suffer the consequences of our own stupidity. Building a city on ground that is well below sea level and then destroying the wetlands that protect the city is the ultimate in arrogance and hubris. Perhaps the message we are to receive from God is that it is folly to think we humans can control either God's creation or even our own destiny.Love in Christ, Joe Blowers
We only can know whether or not a catastrophe, like tsunamis, earthquakes or hurricanes, or military attacks like the attack on New York city, or America's attack on Afganistan are naturally caused, or divinely caused through the testimony of prophets. Bad things happen on earth that are not necessarily the hand of God (though I believe He is still sovereign over all). In the old testament, disasters and military invasions happened all the time like they do today. But it took the prophets to interpret the meaning of the disaster or military invasion.So the issues today are...a). does God still judge through military invasions and disasters. not all catastrophes, but specific ones.b). are there still prophets functioning?c). how do we test the prophets?These questions need to be answered generally before we can deal with specific events. If a person has no criteria for testing prophets then they'll blindly accept every prophecy they hear. If a person doesn't swallow the notion that God still judges through events that affect both the guilty and the innocent, then they won't accept a prophetic interpretation of an event.Personally, I believe that God does still judge this way and I believe that there are prophets still functioning. The only one I give attention to is David Wilkerson who ministers in New York whose heart is broken for New York pleading that they would repent and turn back to God. I know nothing of the prophet that Steve quoted. I believed that the New Orleans disaster could have been the hand of God just as i believed that the attack on the twin towers and the attack on Afghanistan could be the hand of God. But without confirmation of a prophet I trusted, I wasn't willing to commit to such, or to preach such. So where I struggle is with c). how do we test the prophets. The messages of prophets are often hard for us to accept because they make us very uncomfortable by railing against the status quo. And the temptation is to pridefully accept the message of a prophet when it is pointing at everyone but me. But if they are doing God's work, they will make _me_ uncomfortable. Or they will cause my heart to break for the people who under God's judgement.While I don't question the appropriateness of this subject to this forum, I wonder as a followup how this issue impacts us from a peace and justice perspective. Do we only use the term "justice" when it speaks of fair treatment of the oppressed and not use it to speak of appropriate measures for the oppressors? Would it not be a measure of peace to warn a group that they are susceptible to God's judgement if they do not repent? Was Jonah a peacemaker? I think he was. It seems that we only do peacemaking when it is testifying to the government to not use military action. But were we peacemakers by warning Sadaam Hussein that if he did not repent and turn from his sins, God was going to bring judgement on him and his nation. I think peacemaking is both sides of the coin, though we only give attention to one.
Jeffrey C. Long
Jeff, I think this is a very good point. I think that as peacemakers, we do not have the right to take the measure of justice against oppressors ourselves. We do not harm our enemies. However, we have the responsibility to warn oppressors that they would be judged by God. We don't necessarily have the responsibility to force change to oppressors. If people want to do that, it might be okay, but the more humble position is to speak to them God's truth and allow them to make their own decisions.
BTW, I do have a teaching which lays out how to test a prophet.
Steve K
1. I never said that New Orleans was worse than other cities. I said that God declared that a city isn't destroyed without his plan, and that he doesn't do it unless a prophecy is declared ahead of time to that effect. Since there WAS a prophecy to this effect, and the timing was right, I believe that we can confirm that it was done by God.
2. New Orleans, however, is a good target because they had a number of issues: They promoted sorcery, they also ignored their poor, and what was worse, they promoted the abuse of Christian tradition as an excuse for drunken debauchery-- Mardi Gras in particular.
3. I am not the one second-guessing God's plan or work. I have evidence to that effect. Where is your evidence that God does not act that way? What texts prove that God would never act in judgment? It seems that the requirement of proof is on the side saying "God wouldn't act that way"-- since we have clear evidence all throughout the Scripture that He does.
Steve Kimes
Of the answers I've read so far, I find that I agree most with Joe. Are we afraid to trust in a loving God who, as in the story of the prodigal, allows us to go our own way, but is waiting, not to hand out the punishment we deserve, but with open arms to welcome us back? This God, described by Jesus, is the one I choose to follow.
Tom Brenneman
Jesus prophesied destruction as well.
Jeffrey C. Long
The one thing that many people don't recognize when the use the prodigal son as their paradigm of salvation is that the prodigal repented of his sin first.
The paradigm of the prodigal son is as follows:
a. Rejection of the Father
b. Lifestyle of sin
c. Destruction due to lifestyle of sin
d. Realization of salvation of the Father
e. Return to Father
f. Confession/Repentance
g. Acceptance by the Father
New Orleans actually fits the prodigal son paradigm-- it's just that they are in the destruction part of the story. Some individuals are in the "realization" stage. But all of them still have the opportunity to repent and be accepted by the Father.
Jesus and Paul and Peter and the whole bible recognizes that God sometimes initiates destruction in people's lives. The New Testament paradigm is that God does it in order to save some people. This is certainly God's purpose for New Orleans.
Steve K.
Steve, your interpretation depends on what you mean by"first". I have heard this preached differently(multiple times). The father accepted the prodigalson before the son did any confession or repentance,as evidenced by the father's running to the son andembracing him upon the mere sight of him. It was*after* this acceptance that the son made hisconfession. Yes, the son had *planned* to repent,which is what led him home. But the father didn'trequire the words; he was just overjoyed to see hisson back home!This is a subtle but key distinction in thisdiscussion. And it is one that has always bothered meabout those who supposedly preach "salvation bygrace". Even though they profess this claim thatworks are not required, they still require the "work"of repentance prior to acceptance by God. In otherwords, they say that God won't love or accept us untiland unless we repent.In contrast, if God's love for us is constant and hiswelcome is always available, the "requirement" ofrepentance is only for our sakes. In other words,*we* can't accept God's love for us until we re-turnto God and recognize that God is there waiting for us,arms open wide. Repentance is crucial, but notbecause God requires it before he'll love us.
Dave
I appreciate your comments, and this discussion is helpful, I believe.
I understand that you have probably heard quite a bit of preaching on the prodigal son, but, of course, what we should most be interested in is what Jesus' point is, not any given pastor's point.
Jesus had given three parables about acceptance in Luke 15, and the main point is the same with all three. Jesus' explanation is given in this way:
"I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance." and "In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Luke 15:7, 10). If one looked at each of these parables-- that of the woman looking for a coin and a man looking for a sheep-- no indication of repentance is given. But Jesus inserts repentance into his interpretive statement of them.
In the prodigal son, the son did repent before the father accepted him. On the human level, the father would not have known about that repentance. All that is well and good. But we need to accept Jesus' interpretation, not restrict it to human limitation. Jesus' interpretation, and the reason the son is given a paragraph to describe his repentance before he reaches his father, is that the repentance is a pre-requisite of the father's acceptance.
This does not mean that God does not love everyone. Of course he does. He sent his son to die for everyone in the world because he loved the whole world-- Hitler, Stalin, Herod, everyone (John 3:16). And he offers rain and food to everyone, without exception to their sin (Matt. 5:45). But he does not offer his blessings, his kingdom, his full promises to everyone. Some are accepted, and some are judged (John 5). And some are judged in this life, by God's hand (Acts 5). That is how God works.
God is the God of mercy and forgiveness. And he is the God of judgment and vengeance. If God never gave vengeance, then it would be foolish for us to be sacrificed for peace. The way of the cross is founded on the fact that God judges the wicked. And those who do not repent will be judged (e.g. Luke 6:24-26; Luke 13:1-5).
And here's something that perhaps you didn't notice-- that even our forgiveness of other's can be limited by whether the sinner repents or not (Matt 18:15-17; Luke 17:3-4).
By the way, I never called myself a "grace" theologian. I am just interested in teaching what Jesus taught, doing what Jesus did-- no more, no less. To the degree Jesus showed grace, so will I. Inasmuch as Jesus limited grace, so will I. Jesus is the Savior, not I, so I must depend on Him to show me who to declare salvation to. And I still find that I usually have to preach "do not judge" and "forgive" more often than "rebuke the sinning brother".
Steve K
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Is the New Orleans disaster a judgement of God?
Many have been concerned about the New Orleans disaster, and the questions has been asked and argued over-- Did God judge New Orleans? I believe that the answer is yes, based on a passage of Scripture and a prophecy given to New Orleans before the event.
Amos 3:6-8
6 If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it? 7 Surely the Lord GOD does nothing Unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets. 8 A lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord GOD has spoken! Who can but prophesy?
What the Lord is saying through Amos is that a city is destroyed through the judgment of God. However, we cannot be certain of this unless His messengers, the prophets, speaks of it. A city is not judged at God's hand unless God's prophets speak of it, and warn about it. However, a prophet did speak God's message, warning New Orleans of impending disaster before the event occurred.
This is a prophecy spoken by prophet Kim Clement in July, 2005, one month before the disaster that would overtake New Orleans:
"O New Orleans God speaks to you from Houston tonight and says enough of this! For a judgment is coming says the Spirit of the Lord, and I will take the men that have stood in faith, raise them above the flood that shall destroy those that constantly bicker and stand against my servant Moses, or my servant Bilbo. I want you to understand there are great men in New Orleans that have faith but you have been set aside not to lose but to win. Enough of this! For I will take the curses and the bodies will even rise and they will come forth on the water, but I will keep you and the stench of death will only last a few days. And then what I promised two years ago will come to pass for August, September and October of this year I made a promise it would happen, and God said be strengthened now, be strengthened now for enough is enough says the Lord."
For the full prophecy and more information, look at the following web page:
http://www.kimclement.com/words/2005/July222005.htm
The "Bilbo" is not the character in the Hobbit, but Pastor Garland Bilbo of New Orleans, who was somewhat involved in the scandal of Jimmy Swaggart. For more info on this, look here:
http://blogs.salon.com/0003494/2005/09/15.html
Many have questions about Kim Clement's ministry and previous prophecies he has made. However, concerning this particular prophecy, I think his words after the fact are right on:
"I had no joy hearing of the devastations as news came to America of the dreaded "Katrina" and I found myself in a state of mourning and tears. I pray for strength upon the people of these States, especially those who have lost everything. God said to "be strengthened"."
I understand that this point of view doesn't sit comfortably with some of our theology. I don't like it either. But we must recognize that judgement and vengeance is in the hand of God, and that God will, on occasion, use that right. However, if we pray for God's mercy, then he will surely listen. So let us use this opportunity to continually pray for God's mercy. Go's peace is established through the prayers of his people. If they fail to pray, then judgement will fall.
May the Lord have mercy on all of us who live among degenerate peoples and have mercy on the poor who are harmed the most in any judgement or destruction caused by the Evil One.
Amos 3:6-8
6 If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it? 7 Surely the Lord GOD does nothing Unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets. 8 A lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord GOD has spoken! Who can but prophesy?
What the Lord is saying through Amos is that a city is destroyed through the judgment of God. However, we cannot be certain of this unless His messengers, the prophets, speaks of it. A city is not judged at God's hand unless God's prophets speak of it, and warn about it. However, a prophet did speak God's message, warning New Orleans of impending disaster before the event occurred.
This is a prophecy spoken by prophet Kim Clement in July, 2005, one month before the disaster that would overtake New Orleans:
"O New Orleans God speaks to you from Houston tonight and says enough of this! For a judgment is coming says the Spirit of the Lord, and I will take the men that have stood in faith, raise them above the flood that shall destroy those that constantly bicker and stand against my servant Moses, or my servant Bilbo. I want you to understand there are great men in New Orleans that have faith but you have been set aside not to lose but to win. Enough of this! For I will take the curses and the bodies will even rise and they will come forth on the water, but I will keep you and the stench of death will only last a few days. And then what I promised two years ago will come to pass for August, September and October of this year I made a promise it would happen, and God said be strengthened now, be strengthened now for enough is enough says the Lord."
For the full prophecy and more information, look at the following web page:
http://www.kimclement.com/words/2005/July222005.htm
The "Bilbo" is not the character in the Hobbit, but Pastor Garland Bilbo of New Orleans, who was somewhat involved in the scandal of Jimmy Swaggart. For more info on this, look here:
http://blogs.salon.com/0003494/2005/09/15.html
Many have questions about Kim Clement's ministry and previous prophecies he has made. However, concerning this particular prophecy, I think his words after the fact are right on:
"I had no joy hearing of the devastations as news came to America of the dreaded "Katrina" and I found myself in a state of mourning and tears. I pray for strength upon the people of these States, especially those who have lost everything. God said to "be strengthened"."
I understand that this point of view doesn't sit comfortably with some of our theology. I don't like it either. But we must recognize that judgement and vengeance is in the hand of God, and that God will, on occasion, use that right. However, if we pray for God's mercy, then he will surely listen. So let us use this opportunity to continually pray for God's mercy. Go's peace is established through the prayers of his people. If they fail to pray, then judgement will fall.
May the Lord have mercy on all of us who live among degenerate peoples and have mercy on the poor who are harmed the most in any judgement or destruction caused by the Evil One.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
I believe that God... (the significant word is "I")
I heard someone say this: "The christian bible says that, 'Jesus is the way'. But, there are many holy books that teach something else. I believe that there are many ways to God". How would you respond to this?
There's not much that you can say about that. If you believe in something else, then that's your choice.
Some have taken Pascal's wager, which is that believing in Jesus is taking less chances than not believing in him.
I personally believe that if Jesus is risen from the dead, then he is the only one to give us any accurate information about the spirit world and God. For everyone else, God is a matter of guess work.
But if you don't believe in the resurrection and believe that there are many ways to God, what CAN you say?
I guess for me the only thing is that you cannot have contradictory ways to God. In other words, if one person says "The best way to God is to get all desire out of your life so you no longer want anything" (fundamental Buddhism) and another says "The only way to God is to desire righteousness" (fundamental Judaism and Christianity). These contradict each other, and cannot be reconciled. God is not a schizophrenic. Nor is he a kindly old grandfather, just happy that his children are paying any attention at all to him, so he will accept any kind of gifts. God isn't like that, if he is uniform, if he is the most powerful being in the universe. He wants what he wants and it isn't up to us to tell Him what he wants. What we need to do is to determine what He best wants.
The problem with people saying "I believe" about God is that they are dictating to God who He is and what he wants. They aren't saying, "I believe that God revealed such and such..." They are saying that whatever idea that came into their head is what they determine is God. So what does that really mean? It means that their god is their mind, their opinions. Thus, the cult of "I believe" is the most insidious and narcissistic of idolatries-- the worship of one's own frail, human thinking.
I believe that it is pretty pathetic.
There's not much that you can say about that. If you believe in something else, then that's your choice.
Some have taken Pascal's wager, which is that believing in Jesus is taking less chances than not believing in him.
I personally believe that if Jesus is risen from the dead, then he is the only one to give us any accurate information about the spirit world and God. For everyone else, God is a matter of guess work.
But if you don't believe in the resurrection and believe that there are many ways to God, what CAN you say?
I guess for me the only thing is that you cannot have contradictory ways to God. In other words, if one person says "The best way to God is to get all desire out of your life so you no longer want anything" (fundamental Buddhism) and another says "The only way to God is to desire righteousness" (fundamental Judaism and Christianity). These contradict each other, and cannot be reconciled. God is not a schizophrenic. Nor is he a kindly old grandfather, just happy that his children are paying any attention at all to him, so he will accept any kind of gifts. God isn't like that, if he is uniform, if he is the most powerful being in the universe. He wants what he wants and it isn't up to us to tell Him what he wants. What we need to do is to determine what He best wants.
The problem with people saying "I believe" about God is that they are dictating to God who He is and what he wants. They aren't saying, "I believe that God revealed such and such..." They are saying that whatever idea that came into their head is what they determine is God. So what does that really mean? It means that their god is their mind, their opinions. Thus, the cult of "I believe" is the most insidious and narcissistic of idolatries-- the worship of one's own frail, human thinking.
I believe that it is pretty pathetic.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Reincarnation in the Bible?
It is appointed for man to die once, and then comes the judgment.(i don't know where in the bible that is located- do you?)The above verse tells me that reincarnation is not going to happen (would i be correct in this, or am i being naive?). Would you please direct me to all of the other scripture references that support the above verse?The reason that I bring this up is that the other day I over heard this guy say that, "Jesus said that John the baptist is Elijah," to support reincarnation. I know that the guy is wrong, but I cant prove it. So, what say you?
That verse is found in Hebrews 9:27.
Yes, that verse clearly says that reincarnation isn't something the Bible teaches. Rather, the Bible teaches in resurrection-- that after a period of our bodies being separated from our souls, they would be brought back together (Luke 16; Daniel 12; John 5:28-29). Paul and Jesus also clearly teach that the resurrected bodies would be powerful "spiritual" bodies-- kinda like Superman (Matt. 22; I Cor. 15:42). The Bible is clear that these bodies will live eternally, never to die again (Rev 21:4; Matt 25:46; John 5:24).
As far as what Jesus said about John the Baptist: Yes, he said that John the Baptist marked the return of Elijah-- Matthew 11:14. But did he mean reincarnation by that? Obviously not, since Elijah met with Jesus during his ministry at the transfiguration, not John the Baptist (Matt 17:3). The disciples did not recognize Elijah as John, but instead asked about the prophecy that Elijah would return (Malachi 4). Jesus said that Elijah had already come, as prophecied, and he was clearly talking about John. However, the angel speaking to John's father clarified exactly what was meant, that John would have the spirit and power of Elijah. Not that he was Elijah himself.
So could Elijah come again? Jesus said he would (Matt 17). And it is still possible, and not in the way John the Baptist did. The reason for this is that Elijah never died. He was taken up to heaven directly, without dying first (II Kings 1-2).
Does this mean reincarnation isn't possible? No, God could do whatever he wanted, and since Jesus experienced birth after he already existed, then it is certainly possible that God COULD do it. But I think Heb 9:27 (the verse you quoted) clearly says that it isn't God's normal plan. Every person has one life to live. People's consciousnesses don't start over. That's the Bible. If someone wants to believe in something else, that's fine. But don't say the Bible teaches it.
That verse is found in Hebrews 9:27.
Yes, that verse clearly says that reincarnation isn't something the Bible teaches. Rather, the Bible teaches in resurrection-- that after a period of our bodies being separated from our souls, they would be brought back together (Luke 16; Daniel 12; John 5:28-29). Paul and Jesus also clearly teach that the resurrected bodies would be powerful "spiritual" bodies-- kinda like Superman (Matt. 22; I Cor. 15:42). The Bible is clear that these bodies will live eternally, never to die again (Rev 21:4; Matt 25:46; John 5:24).
As far as what Jesus said about John the Baptist: Yes, he said that John the Baptist marked the return of Elijah-- Matthew 11:14. But did he mean reincarnation by that? Obviously not, since Elijah met with Jesus during his ministry at the transfiguration, not John the Baptist (Matt 17:3). The disciples did not recognize Elijah as John, but instead asked about the prophecy that Elijah would return (Malachi 4). Jesus said that Elijah had already come, as prophecied, and he was clearly talking about John. However, the angel speaking to John's father clarified exactly what was meant, that John would have the spirit and power of Elijah. Not that he was Elijah himself.
So could Elijah come again? Jesus said he would (Matt 17). And it is still possible, and not in the way John the Baptist did. The reason for this is that Elijah never died. He was taken up to heaven directly, without dying first (II Kings 1-2).
Does this mean reincarnation isn't possible? No, God could do whatever he wanted, and since Jesus experienced birth after he already existed, then it is certainly possible that God COULD do it. But I think Heb 9:27 (the verse you quoted) clearly says that it isn't God's normal plan. Every person has one life to live. People's consciousnesses don't start over. That's the Bible. If someone wants to believe in something else, that's fine. But don't say the Bible teaches it.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
More Questions Answered
Question # 1) If Christians are to "love their enemies" as is told us in the Scriptures, does that mean we are to love satan as well?
It is interesting that Jesus told us to "not resist an evil one", by which he means human authorities (like the police or governments) that use their authority to harm us. So in that context, we are not to "resist" them, (the word is antisthmi, which literally means "stand against"-- the Strong's number is 5629) which means that we are to submit to their authority and harm them in no way. That is Matthew 5:38-41. But for Satan, the same word is used in a number of contexts, but just the opposite counsel is given-- we are to "resist" or "stand against" Satan and all evil powers of the heaven. We can see this in Eph 6:13; James 4:7; I Peter 5:9. Thus, Scripture is clear-- while we do not harm humans in any way-- even if they harm us-- we are to cause Satan and his forces as much damage as possible. Note also, that though we are not to take part in warfare with humans, we are to throw ourselves into warfare against Satan and the evil powers of heaven-- Eph 6:11-12; II Corinthians 10:3-4.
Question # 2) If a woman's husband dies, is she still considered a "Mrs"?
When a spouse dies, the marriage commitment is lapsed-- the couple is no longer considered married. This is clearest in Romans 7:2-3.
Question #3)Actually, the real question is: If a woman is divorced, is she still considered a "Mrs."?
Oh, that's different.
I am assuming that you are speaking in the eyes of God, not in the law, and so I will answer it that way.
Jesus statement about this is as follows: (Matthew 19:3-9-- NAS)
Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '? 6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
This has been interpreted many times and ways over 2000 years of Christians trying to get out of what it clearly says. Let me summarize it as clearly as I can:
Divorce, according to Jesus, does not break a marriage that God established. Divorce is a human institution, not a God-made one. The commitment to marriage is for life, and a divorce does not break that. Thus, if a divorcee marries another person, then they are probably committing adultery-- because the original marriage isn't actually broken.
However, there is a circumstance in which a marriage is broken: adultery. In other words, if either partner in a marriage-- whether there is a divorce or not-- has sex with someone who is not their spouse, then they have broken their marriage. The commitment is null and void. The "innocent" partner can forgive the lapse and the marriage can be established anew, but the commitment is broken at that point and it is up to the partner that did not break it to determine that.
This is a difficult thing to hear-- even as the disciples said-- but much of what Jesus said is like that.
It is interesting that Jesus told us to "not resist an evil one", by which he means human authorities (like the police or governments) that use their authority to harm us. So in that context, we are not to "resist" them, (the word is antisthmi, which literally means "stand against"-- the Strong's number is 5629) which means that we are to submit to their authority and harm them in no way. That is Matthew 5:38-41. But for Satan, the same word is used in a number of contexts, but just the opposite counsel is given-- we are to "resist" or "stand against" Satan and all evil powers of the heaven. We can see this in Eph 6:13; James 4:7; I Peter 5:9. Thus, Scripture is clear-- while we do not harm humans in any way-- even if they harm us-- we are to cause Satan and his forces as much damage as possible. Note also, that though we are not to take part in warfare with humans, we are to throw ourselves into warfare against Satan and the evil powers of heaven-- Eph 6:11-12; II Corinthians 10:3-4.
Question # 2) If a woman's husband dies, is she still considered a "Mrs"?
When a spouse dies, the marriage commitment is lapsed-- the couple is no longer considered married. This is clearest in Romans 7:2-3.
Question #3)Actually, the real question is: If a woman is divorced, is she still considered a "Mrs."?
Oh, that's different.
I am assuming that you are speaking in the eyes of God, not in the law, and so I will answer it that way.
Jesus statement about this is as follows: (Matthew 19:3-9-- NAS)
Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '? 6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
This has been interpreted many times and ways over 2000 years of Christians trying to get out of what it clearly says. Let me summarize it as clearly as I can:
Divorce, according to Jesus, does not break a marriage that God established. Divorce is a human institution, not a God-made one. The commitment to marriage is for life, and a divorce does not break that. Thus, if a divorcee marries another person, then they are probably committing adultery-- because the original marriage isn't actually broken.
However, there is a circumstance in which a marriage is broken: adultery. In other words, if either partner in a marriage-- whether there is a divorce or not-- has sex with someone who is not their spouse, then they have broken their marriage. The commitment is null and void. The "innocent" partner can forgive the lapse and the marriage can be established anew, but the commitment is broken at that point and it is up to the partner that did not break it to determine that.
This is a difficult thing to hear-- even as the disciples said-- but much of what Jesus said is like that.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Update on my health
Thank all of you who have been praying for my health and my energy. I have really needed it, because my body has had some real ups and downs the last couple months. I am officially diagnosed with diabetes, as my blood sugar has been going through a roller-coaster ride. My doctor and I are working on a diet/exercise plan to maintain my health and energy. I have also been seeking healing prayer and have been praying to the Lord myself. I do believe that the Lord will grant me enough energy to do what He has appointed me to do, but at the same time, I think this time of testing will continue for a season.
I pray that it will only be for a season, but I also am constantly remembering the Lord's conversation with Paul in II Cor 12. When Paul asked for a "thorn in the flesh" to be removed three times, the Lord refused him and instead said, "My strength is made perfect through your weakness." I am personally feeling very weak, very human right now, although I understand it is far less than some of you have experienced. This difficulty is small for me, but the task I have been given is great, almost overwhelming. But if this weakness allows God's strength to displayed more perfectly through me, then I gladly accept it.
As I do my ministry, I am constantly reminded of Mother Theresa's words, "I know that the Lord only gives us as much as we can handle, but I wish he didn't trust me so much." At this point, the only way Anawim will be sustained is through the Lord's work. Not just His work in me-- because I am frail and weak and of limited ability and strength-- but also his work in other's who have been and will be participating in this ministry.
This is a difficult trust for me. I have been trusting in the Lord for his strength and power through me, and that is an easy trust to have because I know my heart is open to His will, as strange as it may seem sometimes. But it is harder to have trust that God will be working through others in such a way that I must lean upon them as well as God's miraculous power. Yet this is the situation I am in now. An opportunity to grow in trust in the Lord.
I thank all of you who have participated in our ministry up until this point. You have all been necessary to God's work in Anawim. I will ask you for nothing else. But I do ask this-- keep your ears and hearts open to the Spirit's leading. There may be a time ("and that time may never come"-- Bill Palmer quote) that the Spirit will ask you to do Anawim some additional work. I guess what I'm asking is: if the Spirit calls you, please listen. I have no back-up personal reserves right now to do the work the Spirit asks others to do.
Of course, I know the Spirit is leading you to participate in the ministries you are already in-- your churches, your families, your friends, your day-to-day work. And that should be your focus. But whatever additional small things the Spirit leads you to act for Anawim, I just want to let you know, we appreciate it.
A couple more things:
We have been delayed in sending our folks to hurricane country, but we now have a confirmed reservation to send three folks to Gulfport, Mississippi on December 4, for a week. Please continue praying for these folks.
Anawim has lost one of our major donors, through Birch Gleaners. But we have gained about a hundred gallons of dry food in a donation this month, which proves God's generosity again!
Also, if any of you are interested in my blog, I have been putting articles on it for two months now, so there is much to see. Also, the comment section is now opened up to everyone, and comments are certainly welcome. The address is, stevekimes@blogspot.com
Thanks for your prayers and counsel and assistance. May the Lord grant you peace in the same measure as you seek his peace.
I pray that it will only be for a season, but I also am constantly remembering the Lord's conversation with Paul in II Cor 12. When Paul asked for a "thorn in the flesh" to be removed three times, the Lord refused him and instead said, "My strength is made perfect through your weakness." I am personally feeling very weak, very human right now, although I understand it is far less than some of you have experienced. This difficulty is small for me, but the task I have been given is great, almost overwhelming. But if this weakness allows God's strength to displayed more perfectly through me, then I gladly accept it.
As I do my ministry, I am constantly reminded of Mother Theresa's words, "I know that the Lord only gives us as much as we can handle, but I wish he didn't trust me so much." At this point, the only way Anawim will be sustained is through the Lord's work. Not just His work in me-- because I am frail and weak and of limited ability and strength-- but also his work in other's who have been and will be participating in this ministry.
This is a difficult trust for me. I have been trusting in the Lord for his strength and power through me, and that is an easy trust to have because I know my heart is open to His will, as strange as it may seem sometimes. But it is harder to have trust that God will be working through others in such a way that I must lean upon them as well as God's miraculous power. Yet this is the situation I am in now. An opportunity to grow in trust in the Lord.
I thank all of you who have participated in our ministry up until this point. You have all been necessary to God's work in Anawim. I will ask you for nothing else. But I do ask this-- keep your ears and hearts open to the Spirit's leading. There may be a time ("and that time may never come"-- Bill Palmer quote) that the Spirit will ask you to do Anawim some additional work. I guess what I'm asking is: if the Spirit calls you, please listen. I have no back-up personal reserves right now to do the work the Spirit asks others to do.
Of course, I know the Spirit is leading you to participate in the ministries you are already in-- your churches, your families, your friends, your day-to-day work. And that should be your focus. But whatever additional small things the Spirit leads you to act for Anawim, I just want to let you know, we appreciate it.
A couple more things:
We have been delayed in sending our folks to hurricane country, but we now have a confirmed reservation to send three folks to Gulfport, Mississippi on December 4, for a week. Please continue praying for these folks.
Anawim has lost one of our major donors, through Birch Gleaners. But we have gained about a hundred gallons of dry food in a donation this month, which proves God's generosity again!
Also, if any of you are interested in my blog, I have been putting articles on it for two months now, so there is much to see. Also, the comment section is now opened up to everyone, and comments are certainly welcome. The address is, stevekimes@blogspot.com
Thanks for your prayers and counsel and assistance. May the Lord grant you peace in the same measure as you seek his peace.
Answering Some Questions
All questions were provided by Gordon Smith (not the senator).
1) Is okay to pray for animals? I heard a woman pray that no cats would be sacrificed this Halloween.
To pray for animals is fine. We can be emotionally attached to animals, and the Lord understands that attachment. I don't pray for animals usually, myself, but there's nothing wrong with it. Heck, I've prayed for a car before, and we can pray for technology-- why not animals? No where in Scripture does it say that we cannot pray for animals and as humans it is our responsibility to care for animals (Psalm 8). So why not pray for them as well? I'll bet there have been many low level dairy farmers praying for the health of his cow in which his whole economic life depends on.
2) Should Christians pray against legalizing gay mirages? My thinking is on this one, is that, does it really matter if they marry? Should we (the church- the church), pray that they would come to repentance? Rather than waisting time and energy, worrying about the political ramifications, and looking like bad guys.
I think you're right. If we were to pray about this issue, then why don't we pray for all of it-- I mean pray against every area in which the U.S. is unrighteous. The fact that they do not require everyone to worship Yahweh, but allow idolatry-- that's opposed to God's pure righteousness, if anything is. Note that out of the ten commandments, the U.S. only legalizes three of them (murder, stealing, purjury), while the rest are left to each person's "conscience". And Jesus' command of loving one's enemy is considered immoral in many circumstances, as the American justice system is based on punishing one's enemies. The fact is, many wrong things will be legalized before Jesus comes and there will be no really "Christian" nation until Jesus' return.
3) In, the /book of Nahum (1.3) , it states that the "whirlwind and storm is His way." The devil used the whirlwind and storm, to take out Jobs sons and daughters. So, what does that mean, that the whirlwind and storm are exclusively, the Lords?
Storms are under the Lord's command, and Satan-- the minister of God's judgment against humanity-- will sometimes use great powers to judge humanity. God allowed Satan to use that power to test Job-- this is one of the reasons why Job wanted to put God on trial for crimes against him, when he had been righteous.
The main thing we need to remember is that Satan is playing a couple sides, here. He acts for the Lord in judging sinful humanity-- that's his job. He also can judge any human that puts him in authority-- that's all of us.
As far as disasters in the world, we have to look at them open-mindedly. Satan can take pot-shots at humanity any time he wants, and he will occasionally cause a large disaster-- such as the Indonesian tsunami-- just to spark fear in people. He is also sometimes appointed by God to judge a particular area or city because of specific sin-- but the Lord doesn't do this unless he has warned the community ahead of time. This is what I understand happened in New Orleans, and certainly it is true for ancient Jerusalem and Babylon. On occasion, Satan can also ask the Lord to test a specific righteous individual to "prove" their faithfulness. The Lord will sometimes allow these tests, to prove his righteous people.
Thus, in general, it is the Lord's power enacting these judgments, but Satan is the one who is specifically appointed and motivated to use the storm as judgment.
You can see the Lord's relationship to Satan and evil spirits in the following passages--
I kings 22:19-23; Job 1-2; Exodus 12:23; Jeremiah 51:1-4, 56; I Cor 10:10; Hebrews 2:14
Thus, when Satan is finally judged, then this whole system of punishment and testing will be finished. Isaiah 33:1 and Revelation 20. Then we will only have Jesus' method of mercy and repentance.
4) What does it to abide, practicly speaking? Does it mean to seek and serve? What about His 'words?' I read my bible constantly, but I cant rember, hardly a lick. The main reason, that I continue to read it all, is because, God said that His 'word does not come back void.' I am trusting in that promise. So, I guesse my qustion is, What does it mean to truly abide in Christ? Also, what does it mean to have His words abide in you?
"Abide" of course, basically means to "continue in". The opposite of this would be to forsake or to set aside. To abide in Jesus means to retain the covenant with Him. He has established a covenant with us through his death, and that covenant has certain obligations on both sides. On Jesus' side, as we see in John 15, we have complete access to the Father, and thus, the Father's power. On our side, we covenant to obey Jesus and to be faithful to Him-- that is abiding in Jesus and to have his words abide in us.
It is interesting that Jesus mentions both sides. If he had said just "abide in me" then it would have led to easy-believism, that just as long as you claim Jesus you're doing okay. If he had just said, "have my words abide in you" then Jesus would just be giving us a philosophy to live by and it doesn't matter whether it's Jesus or someone else presenting it.
But Jesus said both-- not just honoring and speaking about Jesus; and not just obeying Jesus, but the full faith package.
But this isn't talking about some strange mystical experience (although some people do have that experience) nor is it about Bible memorization (although that is very helpful, and all the early disciples did that-- they literally memorized the exact words of Jesus), but it is about remaining in faith and obedience.
5) How does one know if he or she has the Holy Spirit?
There are a number of ways to know how one is having a spiritual experience:
1. You could be doing things you wouldn't do on your own
2. You could experience a miraculous event, such as a healing or speaking in another tongue you haven't learned
3. You could obtain knowledge you wouldn't have known on your own
However, we must remember that there are many spirits out there, and people are experiencing many different spirits apart from the ones that are pleasing to God. If a person is experiencing the HOLY Spirit, specifically, then we need to look for four things:
1. The Holy Spirit will manifest in some miraculous way, such as described above and also in I Corinthians 12.
2. The Holy Spirit will lead one to act in an attitude of love, peace, patience and self-control, as described in Galatians 5:22-23.
3. The Holy Spirit will enable one to proclaim "Jesus is Lord" I Corinthians 12:3.
4. The Holy Spirit will remind and guide one back to the words and teachings of Jesus. John 14:26
If we see one of these four, it isn't enough. All four must be present to be assured it is the Holy Spirit, and not just our imagination, social pressure, or a different spirit.
If we only see miracles, it might be a spirit, but not the Holy Spirit.
If we only see love, it might be community pressure forcing one to act that way.
If one only proclaims Jesus as Lord-- then it is possible today for a person to be caving in to social pressure, as opposed to the days of Paul in which only a person with a death wish would proclaim Jesus as Lord apart from the Holy Spirit.
If one focuses on the teaching of Jesus, that could be intellectualism.
If we are missing any parts of these, then we do not know it is the Holy Spirit--
If we don't see a miracle, we could be living out our own fantasy.
If we don't see love, there may be power, but it isn't holy.
If a person doesn't proclaim Jesus as Lord, they are experiencing idolatry.
If we aren't guided to Jesus' teaching, we could be experiencing a false spirit in Jesus' name, but not the true Jesus.
But if we experience a spiritual power displayed through the miraculous-- healing, tongues, special knowledge, etc-- that leads us to proclaim Jesus as Lord and to obey his words and that assists us to do all this in an attitude of love-- then we know we have the Spirit.
6)Okay, here is a little story for you. (I'll tell you the short version) I was hanging out with these three guys, driving from here to there, and they stared praying. Eventually, they began to laugh and giggle as though they were drunk. In fact, they were drunk in the spirit. I have heard about people being drunk in the spirit, and I have read about it. But, this is the first time, I have witnessed it. I could "feel the Holy Spirit in that car(i felt something). I did not not break out laughing. I personally in that time felt a calming, that I never felt before. So, what are your thoughts?
These guys are certainly experiencing a spirit, but I don't have enough information to know if it is the Holy Spirit or not. There is a spirit throughout North America that is manifesting a laughing, joyful spirit, but it also seems limited in its power. I don't think this spirit is evil, per se-- that is, he isn't causing destruction of God's people. But the spirit isn't necessarily the holy spirit, either.
I will say that it is strange that such a spirit is being manifested within one of the most hedonistic cultures that has ever existed. Our culture is more focused on "having a good time" than any other, and so why should the Holy Spirit be communicating in this way? Is it because it is a way that these people will understand? Or is it a different spirit taking advantage of the hedonistic times?
I want to make it clear, though, that I have not seen this spirit do any evil, other than to de-focus people from acting sacrificially. Of course, since the way of Jesus is the way of the cross, perhaps that is just enough. It is a real spiritual experience, but I haven't yet had enough evidence to call it the Holy Spirit.
1) Is okay to pray for animals? I heard a woman pray that no cats would be sacrificed this Halloween.
To pray for animals is fine. We can be emotionally attached to animals, and the Lord understands that attachment. I don't pray for animals usually, myself, but there's nothing wrong with it. Heck, I've prayed for a car before, and we can pray for technology-- why not animals? No where in Scripture does it say that we cannot pray for animals and as humans it is our responsibility to care for animals (Psalm 8). So why not pray for them as well? I'll bet there have been many low level dairy farmers praying for the health of his cow in which his whole economic life depends on.
2) Should Christians pray against legalizing gay mirages? My thinking is on this one, is that, does it really matter if they marry? Should we (the church- the church), pray that they would come to repentance? Rather than waisting time and energy, worrying about the political ramifications, and looking like bad guys.
I think you're right. If we were to pray about this issue, then why don't we pray for all of it-- I mean pray against every area in which the U.S. is unrighteous. The fact that they do not require everyone to worship Yahweh, but allow idolatry-- that's opposed to God's pure righteousness, if anything is. Note that out of the ten commandments, the U.S. only legalizes three of them (murder, stealing, purjury), while the rest are left to each person's "conscience". And Jesus' command of loving one's enemy is considered immoral in many circumstances, as the American justice system is based on punishing one's enemies. The fact is, many wrong things will be legalized before Jesus comes and there will be no really "Christian" nation until Jesus' return.
3) In, the /book of Nahum (1.3) , it states that the "whirlwind and storm is His way." The devil used the whirlwind and storm, to take out Jobs sons and daughters. So, what does that mean, that the whirlwind and storm are exclusively, the Lords?
Storms are under the Lord's command, and Satan-- the minister of God's judgment against humanity-- will sometimes use great powers to judge humanity. God allowed Satan to use that power to test Job-- this is one of the reasons why Job wanted to put God on trial for crimes against him, when he had been righteous.
The main thing we need to remember is that Satan is playing a couple sides, here. He acts for the Lord in judging sinful humanity-- that's his job. He also can judge any human that puts him in authority-- that's all of us.
As far as disasters in the world, we have to look at them open-mindedly. Satan can take pot-shots at humanity any time he wants, and he will occasionally cause a large disaster-- such as the Indonesian tsunami-- just to spark fear in people. He is also sometimes appointed by God to judge a particular area or city because of specific sin-- but the Lord doesn't do this unless he has warned the community ahead of time. This is what I understand happened in New Orleans, and certainly it is true for ancient Jerusalem and Babylon. On occasion, Satan can also ask the Lord to test a specific righteous individual to "prove" their faithfulness. The Lord will sometimes allow these tests, to prove his righteous people.
Thus, in general, it is the Lord's power enacting these judgments, but Satan is the one who is specifically appointed and motivated to use the storm as judgment.
You can see the Lord's relationship to Satan and evil spirits in the following passages--
I kings 22:19-23; Job 1-2; Exodus 12:23; Jeremiah 51:1-4, 56; I Cor 10:10; Hebrews 2:14
Thus, when Satan is finally judged, then this whole system of punishment and testing will be finished. Isaiah 33:1 and Revelation 20. Then we will only have Jesus' method of mercy and repentance.
4) What does it to abide, practicly speaking? Does it mean to seek and serve? What about His 'words?' I read my bible constantly, but I cant rember, hardly a lick. The main reason, that I continue to read it all, is because, God said that His 'word does not come back void.' I am trusting in that promise. So, I guesse my qustion is, What does it mean to truly abide in Christ? Also, what does it mean to have His words abide in you?
"Abide" of course, basically means to "continue in". The opposite of this would be to forsake or to set aside. To abide in Jesus means to retain the covenant with Him. He has established a covenant with us through his death, and that covenant has certain obligations on both sides. On Jesus' side, as we see in John 15, we have complete access to the Father, and thus, the Father's power. On our side, we covenant to obey Jesus and to be faithful to Him-- that is abiding in Jesus and to have his words abide in us.
It is interesting that Jesus mentions both sides. If he had said just "abide in me" then it would have led to easy-believism, that just as long as you claim Jesus you're doing okay. If he had just said, "have my words abide in you" then Jesus would just be giving us a philosophy to live by and it doesn't matter whether it's Jesus or someone else presenting it.
But Jesus said both-- not just honoring and speaking about Jesus; and not just obeying Jesus, but the full faith package.
But this isn't talking about some strange mystical experience (although some people do have that experience) nor is it about Bible memorization (although that is very helpful, and all the early disciples did that-- they literally memorized the exact words of Jesus), but it is about remaining in faith and obedience.
5) How does one know if he or she has the Holy Spirit?
There are a number of ways to know how one is having a spiritual experience:
1. You could be doing things you wouldn't do on your own
2. You could experience a miraculous event, such as a healing or speaking in another tongue you haven't learned
3. You could obtain knowledge you wouldn't have known on your own
However, we must remember that there are many spirits out there, and people are experiencing many different spirits apart from the ones that are pleasing to God. If a person is experiencing the HOLY Spirit, specifically, then we need to look for four things:
1. The Holy Spirit will manifest in some miraculous way, such as described above and also in I Corinthians 12.
2. The Holy Spirit will lead one to act in an attitude of love, peace, patience and self-control, as described in Galatians 5:22-23.
3. The Holy Spirit will enable one to proclaim "Jesus is Lord" I Corinthians 12:3.
4. The Holy Spirit will remind and guide one back to the words and teachings of Jesus. John 14:26
If we see one of these four, it isn't enough. All four must be present to be assured it is the Holy Spirit, and not just our imagination, social pressure, or a different spirit.
If we only see miracles, it might be a spirit, but not the Holy Spirit.
If we only see love, it might be community pressure forcing one to act that way.
If one only proclaims Jesus as Lord-- then it is possible today for a person to be caving in to social pressure, as opposed to the days of Paul in which only a person with a death wish would proclaim Jesus as Lord apart from the Holy Spirit.
If one focuses on the teaching of Jesus, that could be intellectualism.
If we are missing any parts of these, then we do not know it is the Holy Spirit--
If we don't see a miracle, we could be living out our own fantasy.
If we don't see love, there may be power, but it isn't holy.
If a person doesn't proclaim Jesus as Lord, they are experiencing idolatry.
If we aren't guided to Jesus' teaching, we could be experiencing a false spirit in Jesus' name, but not the true Jesus.
But if we experience a spiritual power displayed through the miraculous-- healing, tongues, special knowledge, etc-- that leads us to proclaim Jesus as Lord and to obey his words and that assists us to do all this in an attitude of love-- then we know we have the Spirit.
6)Okay, here is a little story for you. (I'll tell you the short version) I was hanging out with these three guys, driving from here to there, and they stared praying. Eventually, they began to laugh and giggle as though they were drunk. In fact, they were drunk in the spirit. I have heard about people being drunk in the spirit, and I have read about it. But, this is the first time, I have witnessed it. I could "feel the Holy Spirit in that car(i felt something). I did not not break out laughing. I personally in that time felt a calming, that I never felt before. So, what are your thoughts?
These guys are certainly experiencing a spirit, but I don't have enough information to know if it is the Holy Spirit or not. There is a spirit throughout North America that is manifesting a laughing, joyful spirit, but it also seems limited in its power. I don't think this spirit is evil, per se-- that is, he isn't causing destruction of God's people. But the spirit isn't necessarily the holy spirit, either.
I will say that it is strange that such a spirit is being manifested within one of the most hedonistic cultures that has ever existed. Our culture is more focused on "having a good time" than any other, and so why should the Holy Spirit be communicating in this way? Is it because it is a way that these people will understand? Or is it a different spirit taking advantage of the hedonistic times?
I want to make it clear, though, that I have not seen this spirit do any evil, other than to de-focus people from acting sacrificially. Of course, since the way of Jesus is the way of the cross, perhaps that is just enough. It is a real spiritual experience, but I haven't yet had enough evidence to call it the Holy Spirit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)