Designer Worship?

 I read recently that most evangelical pastors believe that tithing is not required for NT believers. It seems that we have become a people of strange fire. We like to design our worship to satisfy ourselves. But God's standard never changes. Cain and Able brought offerings (long before the Law) as a way to honor God. Worship always involves giving... even if that makes your flesh uncomfortable. The tenth (1/10 or 10% or tithe) has fallen out of fashion with American Christians. Why am I not surprised? Jesus warned us that we cannot serve both God and money!

We must ask ourselves the following questions if we are serious about being Christ followers and true worshippers in this world that we live in.

What standard of giving did God promise to bless in the Mal 3.10?
Does my 'self designed' giving pattern "exceed the righteousness of the pharisees"? (Matt. 5.20)
Do I give cheerfully? Generously? Weekly? Do I excel in the grace of giving? or am I cheap and selfish? (2Cor 8-9)
Do I recognize that my blessings are tied to my giving? (2Cor 9.6-12) 


Perhaps instead of "designer worship" we should be worshiping in accordance with the Designer!

Scofflaws in Charge?

Frustrated with their inability to change the laws regarding marriage in Illinois fast enough, the establishment leadership has adopted a new tactic. Simply ignore the laws they don't like! They will do an end around the existing laws by seizing upon Pres. Obama's public flip-flop on gay marriage. Gay activist groups and the ACLU are suing the Cook County Clerk on behalf of 25 couples who were refused a marriage license. This mornings Tribune reports that the Cook County Clerk - David Orr is "hoping" that these lawsuits "are the last hurdle to achieving equal marriage for all". Uh, excuse me, Mr. Orr, the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act prohibits marriage "between 2 individuals of the same sex". But it is clear that David Orr will lay down rather than fight for the law. The Governor of Illinois- Pat Quinn-has endorsed same-sex marriage and will not fight the lawsuit either. Pres. Obama has already instructed the US department of justice to stop defending any lawsuits against the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Clearly, the Obama White House and the leadership of Illinois must feel that we ignorant slobs out here aren't smart enough to understand the implications of the current laws. But Civil Unions in Illinois gave all the legal benefits of marriage to homosexual couples. It seems what the gay activists are demanding is justification and full acceptance of homosexual marriage. But this end around the will of the people isn't going to lessen any rifts in our social fabric. If anything it guarantees a division (and maybe a political base for these scofflaws in high offices!)

So what is the electorate supposed to do when those in charge of defending the laws against these kinds of lawsuits  refuse to do so, so they can simply do an end around the legal process to ensure their political agenda is moved forward and their supporters appeased? The 32 states that have defeated proposed Same-sex legalization, are they to be ignored? This is scary... the laws are being ignored or circumvented by those who were elected to enforce them. What can the people, whose voice is being ignored, do?

Vote the Bums Out!!!!

.

Gay Marriage: Not a good idea

The institution of marriage is already reeling because of the effects of the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce and out-of-wedlock births. We have reaped the consequences of its devaluation.

Bill Bennett

We are engaged in a debate which, in a less confused time, would be considered pointless and even oxymoronic: the question of same-sex marriage.
Now, anyone who has known someone who has struggled with his homosexuality can appreciate the poignancy, human pain and sense of exclusion that are often involved. One can therefore understand the effort to achieve for homosexual unions both legal recognition and social acceptance. Advocates of homosexual marriages even make what appears to be a sound conservative argument: Allow marriage in order to promote faithfulness and monogamy. This is an intelligent and politically shrewd argument. One can even concede that it might benefit some people. But I believe that overall, allowing same-sex marriages would do significant, long-term social damage.
Recognizing the legal union of gay and lesbian couples would represent a profound change in the meaning and definition of marriage. Indeed, it would be the most radical step ever taken in the deconstruction of society's most important institution. It is not a step we ought to take.
The function of marriage is not elastic; the institution is already fragile enough. Broadening its definition to include same-sex marriages would stretch it almost beyond recognition — and new attempts to broaden the definition still further would surely follow. On what principled grounds could the advocates of same-sex marriage oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers? How could they explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to a bisexual who wants to marry two people? After all, doing so would be a denial of that person's sexuality. In our time, there are more (not fewer) reasons than ever to preserve the essence of marriage.
Marriage is not an arbitrary construct; it is an “honorable estate” based on the different, complementary nature of men and women — and how they refine, support, encourage and complete one another. To insist that we maintain this traditional understanding of marriage is not an attempt to put others down. It is simply an acknowledgment and celebration of our most precious and important social act.
Nor is this view arbitrary or idiosyncratic. It mirrors the accumulated wisdom of millennia and the teaching of every major religion. Among worldwide cultures, where there are so few common threads, it is not a coincidence that marriage is almost universally recognized as an act meant to unite a man and a woman.
To say that same-sex unions are not comparable to heterosexual marriages is not an argument for intolerance, bigotry or lack of compassion (although I am fully aware that it will be considered so by some). But it is an argument for making distinctions in law about relationships that are themselves distinct.
Even Andrew Sullivan, among the most intelligent advocates of same-sex marriage, has admitted that a homosexual marriage contract will entail a greater understanding of the need for “extramarital outlets.” He argues that gay male relationships are served by the “openness of the contract,” and he has written that homosexuals should resist allowing their “varied and complicated lives” to be flattened into a “single, moralistic model.”
But this “single, moralistic model” is precisely the point. The marriage commitment between a man and a woman does not — it cannot — countenance extramarital outlets. By definition it is not an open contract; its essential idea is fidelity. Obviously that is not always honored in practice. But it is normative, the ideal to which we aspire precisely because we believe some things are right (faithfulness in marriage) and others are wrong (adultery). In insisting that marriage accommodate the less restrained sexual practices of homosexuals, Sullivan and his allies destroy the very thing that supposedly has drawn them to marriage in the first place.
There are other arguments to consider against same-sex marriage — for example, the signals it would send, and the impact of such signals on the shaping of human sexuality, particularly among the young. Former Harvard professor E. L. Pattullo has written that “a very substantial number of people are born with the potential to live either straight or gay lives.” Societal indifference about heterosexuality and homosexuality would cause a lot of confusion. A remarkable 1993 article in The Post supports this point. Fifty teenagers and dozens of school counselors and parents from the local area were interviewed. According to the article, teenagers said it has become “cool” for students to proclaim they are gay or bisexual — even for some who are not. Not surprisingly, the caseload of teenagers in “sexual identity crisis” doubled in one year. “Everything is front page, gay and homosexual,” according to one psychologist who works with the schools. “Kids are jumping on it ... [counselors] are saying, “What are we going to do with all these kids proclaiming they are bisexual or homosexual when we know they are not?”
If the law recognizes homosexual marriages as the legal equivalent of heterosexual marriages, it will have enormous repercussions in many areas. Consider just two: sex education in the schools and adoption. The sex education curriculum of public schools would have to teach that heterosexual and homosexual marriage are equivalent. Heather Has Two Mommies would no longer be regarded as an anomaly; it would more likely become a staple of a sex education curriculum. Parents who want their children to be taught (for both moral and utilitarian reasons) the privileged status of heterosexual marriage will be portrayed as intolerant bigots; they will necessarily be at odds with the new law of matrimony and its derivative curriculum.
Homosexual couples will also have equal claim with heterosexual couples in adopting children, forcing us (in law at least) to deny what we know to be true: that it is far better for a child to be raised by a mother and a father than by, say, two male homosexuals.
The institution of marriage is already reeling because of the effects of the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce and out-of-wedlock births. We have reaped the consequences of its devaluation. It is exceedingly imprudent to conduct a radical, untested and inherently flawed social experiment on an institution that is the keystone in the arch of civilization. That we have to debate this issues at all tells us that the arch has slipped. Getting it firmly back in place is, as the lawyers say, a “compelling state interest.”

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Bennett, William J. “Gay Marriage: Not a Very Good Idea.” The Washington Post (May 21, 1996).
THE AUTHOR
William J. Bennett was Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and Secretary of Education under President Reagan, and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Bush. The author of The Book of Virtues several other best sellers. His most recent book is The Educated Child: A Parent's Guide from Preschool Through Eighth Grade. He is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation and codirector of Empower America. He lives with his wife, Elayne, and their two sons in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Copyright © 1996 Washington Post

What to think of "Gay Marriage"?

The arguments can seem persuasive to the compassionate heart. We all have friends or loved ones who are in the homosexual lifestyle. We hear the cry for "equal civil rights" with heterosexuals and are moved by our desire for fairness. So why would we not join in supporting "Gay Marriage"?

Marriage as an institution is suffering. What brought the institution of marriage into this place? Was it the easing of divorce laws in our culture? Or was it the fall out of the sexual liberation movement? Maybe we should just link it to our own sinfulness and infidelities that undermined marriage. Clearly marriage now is not what marriage was; and certainly not what it was intended to be. And that is the issue really. Marriage was intended to be something by somebody. Jesus taught that God had purpose in marriage. He defined it very clearly and intentionally in Matthew 19. 4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be untied to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are not longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Since marriage is the creation of God, he alone has the proprietary rights to define what marriage is. Jesus mentions only heterosexual marriage and makes clear that gender is a part of what makes marriage. Clearly, for Christ (and, necessarily, His followers) there is no such thing as same-sex marriage.

Now I would not support or encourage any unkind or unloving act against any homosexual. Neither do I think that their civil rights should be limited. But marriage is not defined by me or you or the constitutional scholars or congress. It is defined by the Creator- who clearly didnot have that in mind.

Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage

reprinted from Kevin DeYoung

Yesterday, to no one’s surprise, President Obama revealed in an interview that after some “evolution” he has “concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” This after the Vice-President came out last Sunday strongly in favor of gay marriage. Not coincidentally, the New York Times ran an article on Tuesday (an election day with a marriage amendment on one ballot) about how popular and not controversial gay television characters have become. In other words, everyone else has grown up so why don’t you? It can seem like the whole world is having a gay old time, with conservative Christians the only ones refusing to party.

The temptation, then, is for Christians go silent and give up the marriage fight: “It’s no use staying in this battle,” we think to ourselves. “We don’t have to change our personal position. We’ll keep speaking the truth and upholding the Bible in our churches, but getting worked up over gay marriage in the public square is counter productive. It’s a waste of time. It makes us look bad. It ruins our witness. And we’ve already lost. Time to throw in the towel.” I understand that temptation. It is an easier way. But I do not think it is the right way, the God glorifying way, or the way of love.

Here are five reasons Christians should continue to publicly and winsomely oppose bestowing the term and institution of marriage upon same-sex couples:

1. Every time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage. Even in California. In fact, the amendment passed in North Carolina on Tuesday by a wider margin (61-39) than a similar measure passed six years ago in Virginia (57-42). The amendment passed in North Carolina, a swing state Obama carried in 2008, by 22 percentage points. We should not think that gay marriage in all the land is a foregone conclusion. To date 30 states have constitutionally defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

2. The promotion and legal recognition of homosexual unions is not in the interest of the common good. That may sound benighted, if not bigoted. But we must say it in love: codifying the indistinguishability of gender will not make for the “peace of the city.” It rubs against the grain of the universe, and when you rub against the grain of divine design you’re bound to get splinters. Or worse. The society which says sex is up to your own definition and the family unit is utterly fungible is not a society that serves its children, its women, or its own long term well being.

3. Marriage is not simply the term we use to describe those relationships most precious to us. The word means something and has meant something throughout history. Marriage is more than a union of hearts and minds. It involves a union of bodies–and not bodies in any old way we please, as if giving your cousin a wet willy in the ear makes you married. Marriage, to quote one set of scholars, is a” comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act—by the kind of activity that is by its nature fulfilled by the conception of a child. So marriage itself is oriented to and fulfilled by the bearing, rearing, and education of children.” This conjugal view of marriage states in complex language what would have been a truism until a couple generations ago. Marriage is what children (can) come from. Where that element is not present (at the level of sheer design and function, even if not always in fulfillment), marriage is not a reality. We should not concede that “gay marriage” is really marriage. What’s more, as Christians we understand that the great mystery of marriage can never be captured between a relationship of Christ and Christ or church and church.

4. Allowing for the legalization of gay marriage further normalizes what was until very recently, and still should be, considered deviant behavior. While it’s true that politics is downstream from culture, it’s also true that law is one of the tributaries contributing to culture. In our age of hyper-tolerance we try to avoid stigmas, but stigmas can be an expression of common grace. Who knows how many stupid sinful things I’ve been kept from doing because I knew my peers and my community would deem it shameful. Our cultural elites may never consider homosexuality shameful, but amendments that define marriage as one man and one woman serve a noble end by defining what is as what ought to be. We do not help each other in the fight for holiness when we allow for righteousness to look increasingly strange and sin to look increasingly normal.

5. We are naive if we think a laissez faire compromise would be enjoyed by all if only the conservative Christians would stop being so dogmatic. The next step after giving up the marriage fight is not a happy millennium of everyone everywhere doing marriage in his own way. The step after surrender is conquest. I’m not suggesting heterosexuals would no longer be able to get married. What I am suggesting is that the cultural pressure will not stop with allowing for some “marriages” to be homosexual. It will keep mounting until all accept and finally celebrate that homosexuality is one of Diversity’s great gifts. The goal is not for different expressions of marriage, but for the elimination of definitions altogether. Capitulating on gay marriage may feel like giving up an inch in bad law to gain a mile in good will. But the reality will be far different. For as in all of the devil’s bargains, the good will doesn’t last nearly so long as the law.

why create people destined for hell?

This question was referred to me by a friend for his grandson. The question reflects the complications of the theological concept of omniscience. God knows all. We are taught this in scriptures like Psalm 139. God knows everything. He knows the reason for every thing and person's existence and he knows the end from the beginning. Yet, if some of his creatures will end up in eternal damnation, wouldn't it be better if they never lived at all?

Here are some reasons why it wouldn't be better for them to have not existed.

     1- Each person is created in God's image and is a unique expression of God's creative genius. To leave them uncreated would be to stifle the creativity of God. You are a live worth living... even if you choose not to follow God!

     2- Each person deserves a chance at fulfilling their divine destiny. God doesn't always get his way. That may come as a shock but God has limited his will and made it contingent upon the will of his creatures. No one will enter heaven against their will. God clearly says to us that his will is that "all men may be saved" 1 Tim 2.4;2 Peter 3.9. So to not create those who end up in hell, is to strip them of the opportunity of heaven.

    3- Some may be basing this question on the assumption that God has predestined some for hell. This is a theological error. God clearly wants men to be saved... but he will not kidnap anyone to bring them with Him to heaven. We are each given the right of choice and self determination- ie., free will. Otherwise heaven would be populated with automatons.

   4- Human existence, even if it ends up in damnation, is still worthwhile. Christians should be careful not to minimize the blessing of life in this flesh for the purpose of looking forward to heaven. 1 Tim 6.17 tells us that this life is a blessing from God and has been given to us to richly enjoy. Of course, life eternal is blessed beyond our ability to even understand!

   5-In a sense, God even gets glory from those who will stand on the last day and testify to his faithfulness in offering them the Saving Gospel (though they rejected it). God will shine forth as faithful. Even those who reject the gospel message will fall to their knees and recognize verbally his Lordship. Phil 2 says every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. The hellishness of hell may be that recognition that the opportunity to be with Him for ever is lost!


God knows the end from the beginning, clearly. But this doesn't mean he CAUSES a person to choose a destiny. That choice is left up to the individual. for instance, I may know that a child will rebel when I tell them not to touch the hot stove. I may give warnings, etc. But I am not responsible for the act of defiance that burns those little fingers. Though I suspected it would happen, I was not responsible for the event because I had warned against it. So too the choice is up to you. Who will you serve?

The Gift of Tongues

We continue in our study of the gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12 with a discussion of the gift of tongues. There are many who see this gift as controversial. I say that when God heals a sick person, or gives a person a divine word of Knowledge it is just as revolutionary as this gift of tongues. Others have said that this gift is a lesser gift. But Paul doesn't mention any sort of hierarchy of the Holy Spirit's manifestations. What is at view here is the Spirit manifesting himself in the gathering of believers. (You will recall that what Paul writes about from chapter 11 through 15 is regarding their behavior and decorum when "gathered together"). These corporate manifestations are for the blessing of all. So what Paul has in view here, indeed, what the Holy Spirit is speaking about is the common expression of speaking in tongues in a corporate gathering. He is not speaking of personal prayer language, though, he does reference it in chapter 14, but here in chapter 12 he is mentioning the practice of one or another of the brothers or sisters in the fellowship being moved upon by the Spirit and speaking out in a language that they have never known. This may be a language from around the world somewhere (whether known or not) or the language of angels that he references in Chapter 13. I remember speaking to a dear sister in the Lord and she was at a Bible college where the gifts of the Spirit were not welcome (shame!) and a representative from Africa began to great the congregation in his native language. It consisted of clicks and pops and ticks. She confessed to me that she could only think amusingly that some poor soul had that prayer language!

Paul recognizes the power of a word form God irrespective of it's source and sets some guidelines in order. He wishes that all men would speak in tongues as he does, but recognizes that this isn't the case. He also encourages the leadership of the assemblies to welcome and not to forbid the speaking in tongues. He tells us in 14.2 that this language is distinctively for praise (though it is most beneficial when interpreted) because it is between God and man. (This, by the way, rules out the foolish understanding that God imparts supernaturally the language without learning for the purpose of preaching) No, tongues is God-ward and not towards man. In the case of the use of this manifestation gift in the gathered people of God it would be a sort of turbo charged prayer- that all believers would be able to say amen to- but only as it is interpreted. And so Paul's instance upon the gift of interpretation being practiced and demanded that this should be in place or the public use of tongues is of no value in the gathered assembly.

Of course, many of us have witnessed the distracting even self-seeking elements of the flesh at work in the church. God's purpose is to edify the body through these manifestations. Only then will they truly be gifts to the church.

Sloshed in the Spirit?

Getting "drunk in the Holy Spirit" has been a popular concept in some churches. But is it biblical?

The following is an article by Lee Grady of Charisma Magazine

A few years ago a traveling charismatic minister from the West coast passed through Florida to conduct a series of renewal meetings. I'd never heard of the guy, but the rumor was that he carried a "special" anointing. It was unique, that's for sure-especially when he took the microphone, slurred his words as if intoxicated and leaned to the left of the pulpit as if he were about to fall over. Then, in between some bizarre spasms, he would shout what sounded like "Walla walla bing bang!"

His message didn't make sense. But if he had just said "Ding Dong Bell" or "Yabba Dabba Doo" over and over, some people in his meetings would have run to the front of the room and swooned, even though he never opened his Bible during his message. They wanted what this man claimed to possess—an anointing to become "drunk in the Spirit."

"Let's put the childish things behind us. It's time for us to grow up and sober up."

Spiritual intoxication has been a trend in charismatic circles for a while. Some respected preachers, citing Acts 2:13, defend the concept that Christians might feel drunk when they are filled with the Holy Spirit (because the early disciples were accused of being drunk when they spoke in tongues). This teaching led to lots of disorderly conduct in revival meetings—including nosebleeds, bruises and more serious injuries.

Some people began to manifest what looked like seizures during renewal services, and the bizarre behavior was defended as "manifestations of the Spirit." Some pastors even encouraged wobbly saints to find "designated drivers" if they felt too drunk to operate a vehicle when it was time to go home. Meanwhile, some worship leaders introduced "Holy Ghost drinking songs" that encouraged people to slosh around in the joy of the Lord while uncorking more of His new wine.

The spiritual drunkenness craze led to other charismatic fads, including an infatuation with angels, an obsession with golden dust and the strange teachings of John Crowder—a confessed "new mystic" who compares the infilling of the Holy Spirit to smoking marijuana.

Crowder, who is planting a church in Santa Cruz, Calif., this fall, sometimes calls his meetings "sloshfests" and refers to himself as a bartender for God. He teaches that God wants all Christians to be continually drunk in the Holy Spirit—and he provides resources to help you do just that, including an electronica recording that will help you, in Crowder's words, "trance out," and a teaching that encourages stigmata and levitation.

I'll let the theologians sort out all the obvious reasons why Crowder and other "new mystics" are treading on dangerous ground. Meanwhile I have a less complicated concern. With all of this emphasis on Holy Ghost intoxication, did anybody notice that the Bible clearly commands us to be spiritually sober?

If soberness wasn't mentioned in the New Testament, then I wouldn't be beating this drum so loudly. But I find numerous references, from both Peter and Paul. "But you, be sober in all things," is Paul's admonition to Timothy (2 Tim. 4:5, NASB). He tells the Thessalonians, "But since we are of the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation," (1 Thess. 5:8).

Peter hammers the same point. He wrote, "Prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 1:13) and "The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer" (1 Pet. 4:7).

The soberness here is not primarily a reference to abstaining from alcohol (although it's worth mentioning that believers who drink will find it more difficult to obey these commands). To be sober can be defined "to show self-control," "to be sane or rational," or "to be free from excess or extravagance." A sober Christian knows the heights of God's inexpressible joy, but he is never ruled by emotions, passions, lust or any other category of temptation that has the power to dull the spiritual senses.

When I look at the state of our nation today, and consider our spiritual challenges, it's obvious the last thing we need are Christians who are so sloshed in emotional euphoria that they can't pray intelligently and work diligently.

This is not a time for God's people to be incapacitated. We need to be thinking, planning, strategizing, researching and building—all using the Holy Spirit's wisdom. Yes, we need to be filled with the Holy Spirit like never before—but He is not going to fill us so we can act like giddy freshmen at a frat house keg party. Let's put the childish things behind us. It's time for us to grow up and sober up.

J. Lee Grady is editor of Charisma. You can find him on Twitter at leegrady.

Komen Mess- the Pink Stink

Susan G Komen dropped its support of the Planned Parenthood because they have an internal policy that prohibits supporting groups under congressional investigation. Since Planned parenthood is under investigation the charity dropped its support. Then turned around based on the angry response from the Planned Parenthood crowd. Exaggerated claims of help PP being the "only place for women's health" began to make the rounds. Threats were abundant on Twitter and FB. Suddenly Komen anounced a reversal. They have succeded in angering both sides of the argument. Today heads began to role. I think that we should avoid the pink stink until they get their story straight.

Spiritual Gifts- Healing

We come to the gifts of healing in our study of the charisms of the Spirit. Once again, we remind ourselves that the context of these verses is the church gathered. Beginning in 11.2 the Apostle has been talking about propriety in worship as the church gathers. it is in this context, that he has mentioned the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Paul sees these as equipment that the individual believers have distributed upon them by the Spirit so that they may minister one to another. In the same way that the other gifts are not the sole property of the one on whom they have been distributed, neither is the healing gift the express possession of one individual.

Interestingly enough, when we look at the verbiage we recognize the plural in both the word "gifts" and "healings". What is the significance of this? Some have  recognized that the gifts of healings refer to various healings of various diseases. The thought being that there is a variety of proficiencies in healing various diseases. But T. Holdcroft implores us to look deeper than that saying"... the Bible by no means restricts its presentation of God's provision for human healing to a limited scattering of gifted healers..." Truly, the gifts of healing may "shine forth" through many as the church gathers. God has given us direction in James 5.14,15 for the sick to call the elders of the church for prayer and anointing with oil. But any can used in healing, if they are open to the Holy Spirit's manifesting himself in such a way through them.

That these gifts are often attached to evangelists is of no surprise. Mark 16.17,18 reminds us that these signs shall accompany the proclamation of the Word. For we often see the celebration of healing and forgiveness in the same breath (Ps 103). We see these gifts in the lives of those apostles in the book of Acts. But these gifts of healing and other miraculous signs are not limited to those who are apostles as some have said. Philip, for instance (Acts 8.6) did many miracles in Samaria and Barnabus (Acts 14.3) had the word of grace confirmed by signs and wonders. Here in 1 Corinthians Paul is reminding them of the significance of the diversity of the Spirit's manifestations among them when they gather. We ought to be pricked to measure our gatherings against those of the Corinthian church, and to seek the gifts of healings and make room for them among us, realizing that we are given these gifts to compliment and equip the body of believers.

A wrong view of Marriage

I am responding to an article written by James Peron.

One of the more prevalent arguments waged against marriage equality is historically equivalent to creationism. Creationists ignore science and argue, based entirely on their reading of Bible mythology, that the world is 7,000 years old and that species don't evolve. For them, reality has to fit their theology, not the other way around.

Here, of course, James is demonstrating his ignorance of creationism. Not all of those who believe in that the earth has God as it's author believe that the earth is 7000 years old (actually none of them believe that! since Moses was likely writing in the 12th century BC!) and certainly many who actually look at the sciences of cosmology seen likely evidence in things like the cosmological constant and various other scientific evidences that point to the possibility of a creator. For the Christian truth (be it scientific or theological) is absolute and will always be consistent within itself.

One of our projects at the Moorfield Storey Institutehas been the fight for marriage equality. To do that, I've had to do something that opponents of equality fail to do: research. I've read a dozen or so decent histories of marriage, countless papers on the situation regarding the laws, and contemporary looks at what really does happen when marriage equality is realized.

OMG he can read! Seriously, is he honestly saying that people of faith are ignorant of the history of marriage?

In that study I realized that marriage and the origins of life are similar. There are two basic views. One assumes that marriage was created pretty much as it supposedly existed in 1950s America. There was a husband, who was a wage-earner, with a stay-at-home wife and 2.1 children. For good measure, there was a dog, a cat, and grandparents who provided babysitting when Mom and Dad had to attend a business dinner.

Of course, actual marriage in the 1950s wasn't even like that, but then marriage has never been like that. Faith-based history is different. Focus on the Family claims that "God created marriage as a loyal partnership between one man and one woman." The Protestant Reformed Churches of America, a Calvinist outfit, claims that "God created the family in paradise as the first institution He made." They are also quick to tell you that "woman is not man's equal (except in terms of their salvation)."

Here James pseudojournalism is clearly mistaken. Jesus  and Paul was an advocate of equality between the sexes. many of his followers were women, they advocated the empowerment of women into spiritual leadership, and assured their followers that "in Christ there is neither male nor female". Evangelicals today clearly recognize that there is equality, but we also recognize a distinction between the sexes. This is something that the liberal left has difficulty recognizing (except between the sheets).

The creationist view of marriage is that a divine being magically made marriage appear one day by creating a man and a woman and having them make a family (which always raises the question as to the sexual partners of the children of that first couple, especially as the Biblical account has Eve giving birth only to sons).

And the view of Peron and his ilk is that men and women magically appeared from some prebiotic soup mixture (that also magically appeared) and through millions of years of accidental mutations a man and a woman popped out of the soup and mysteriously knew what their penis and vagina were for! And thus the species was able to propogate!(though the thousands of ooppsies and tragically misformed left not a single fossil as evidence of their existence)

However, not even the Old Testament verifies what the creationists argue. It showed marriages to be anything but the Focus on the Family version of a loving couple and their loving children. The men of the Old Testament, including patriarchs of the Bible, often had multiple wives. Abraham supposedly had relationships with Sarah and Hagar. If the Book of 1st Kings is to be believed, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines -- which really does sound like male bravado more than anything else.

OT is describing the fall from God's ideal as it records these things. In it's recording of these things it is not endorsing the actions. Jesus came to restore the ideal of marriage as a man and a wife for life in Matthew 5.32; 19.9 etc. If one can read the texts for themselves they can  see that Jesus is restoring a standard that is higher that the one being lived out. Surely even James Peron can read that... if he dares!

When you look at the real-world history of marriage, you don't see any evidence for this creationist view. What you see is that marriage evolved and has kept evolving. At different times, in different places, marriage filled different functions. The functions marriage filled determined the nature of the marriage at the time. Form follows function.

When land was the major means of production, marriage was intimately tied to the acquisition of land. Under Old Testament law, a man was obligated to marry his brother's widow, as it helped keep land in the family. Where land was a prime consideration, marriages were often arranged, and marrying close kin was common.

Clearly - James must have misread this. The purpose of the levirite law was to propogate the lineage of the deceased brother. In fact, Israel was not a land owning society. The Israelites were nomadic peoples at the time of that law being written. Sorry James!

In Imperial Rome, families that ruled the city were very concerned with the politics of marriage. Alliances were formed or dissolved through marriages and divorces. Meanwhile, the husband wasn't expected to necessarily love his wife, or desire her. No one was horrified if he stepped out on her with a mistress, or even a male lover, provided that rules meant to preserve the social hierarchy were followed -- at least in public.

While this is true, there were many that were horrified (even in Rome) at the dissolution of the family and wrote to warn that the fall of the family unit and marriage in particular would end in the collapse of the Roman empire.

Marriage, at other times, was primarily about household production. The natives of North America had male functions and female functions. Various tribes allowed same-sex relationships, provided that one of the partners took on the role assigned to females. In addition, they often ascribed mystical powers to this individual as a "two-spirit" being, encompassing the spirits of both genders.

The further one gets away from the divine understanding of marriage as a God inspired institution the more utilitarian and empty it becomes. Respect for others and honoring within the family unit and marriage itself is the cornerstone of the family.

For most of human history, marriage was not about love at all. The idea of marriage being about loving couples is very much a modern idea. Of course, once love and mutual nurturing became a prime function of marriage, it opened the door to same-sex marriages, as well.

Rome's ruling families saw marriage as politics, not love. Marriage was to insure that a political elite held power. Romance was found outside marriage. Sexual satisfaction could be found there, as well, with partners of either sex, with little disapproval. A homosexual Roman gentleman could still have his romantic interest, because that was not the function of marriage.

What was on display was rampant hedonism not a display of marital commitment as it should be. Even those who acted out homosexually were smart enough to know that 2 people of the same sex cannot create children. Therefore, the marriage was entered into to create a family.

The moment someone tells me "marriage has always been" something or another, I know they are ignorant of the actual history of marriage. It has never "always" been anything. It has taken different forms, with different social rules attached. Those forms and rules changed as the function of marriage changed.

Not true- Marriage has always been about the propogation of a legitimate family. Hence the creation of terms like "bastard child" and "illegitimate child".

In our world, the function of marriage is not about land, politics, or even procreation. It is about love and mutual support between the spouses. Given the modern function of marriage, it is hardly surprising that gay couples want to be included. They have the same needs and wants as other couples, and marriage provides them the same benefits and serve the same functions as it does for straight couples.

Marriage is not a stagnant institution. It is a vital, evolutionary institution constantly changing forms as the functions it fills adapt to new circumstances.

In fact, the idea that loving homosexuals should marry is undone my Mr. Peron's argument. Marriage isn't about love but about legitimizing family. Since homosexuals are incapable of having children themselves there isn't any need for them to be married. Well, except the real one behind the homosexual agenda... that is the social legitimizing of homosexual relationships. The reason the gay agenda has so soundly embraced this marriage idea is that they want to be legitimized in society. They want to be seen as the biological equivalent of the heterosexual couple- but alas, they cannot be what they are not. I do not endorse violence or hatred of homosexuals, nor do I endorse prejudice or somehow keeping homosexuals from their civil rights. But marriage is not a civil right of the homosexual as it is biologically driven- hardwired into the species.

My suggestion is that James Peron... do a little more research!

Gifts of the Spirit 3

Once again we revisit the "manifestations" of the Spirit- this time regarding the gift of faith. The term used by the Apostle Paul for manifestation is phanerosis means to "bring to light" or "shine forth". We are confronted by Paul's understanding of the "manifestation gifts". These spring forth and reveal the character and nature of God. These are Spirit-imparted and reveal themselves in the corporate gathering of believers (usually). When we speak of the NT 's use of the term faith we see that it is a fruit of the Spirit in Gal 5 where it should likely be translated faithfulness. We know also that Paul understands saving faith to be a gift from God (Eph 2.8-10). But what he has in mind here is a sort of turbo charged trust in God. There are those times when we are out of our depth in God and need to walk through deeper waters than our experience in Jesus has prepared us for. God gifts us with a faith beyond ourselves. Recall the stories of men and women of faith who stood in the face of adversity and believed. You can imagine the need for this in a congregation of saints who will soon come under persecution for their allegiance to Christ. This may manifest itself in the purchase of property, in the trusting for healing or raising the dead.

Some confuse this with extraordinary faith of individuals who habitually trust God for great things.But this is inspirational. In brings in the God-perspective on a specific incident. The gift of faith lifts one from the natural realm and shows a divine perspective. Of course, nothing is impossible with God. Yet, it seemed that Jesus' own miraculous ministry was weakened by the lack of faith in his home town (Mark 6.5-6). Lest the body of Christ be limited in performing the will of God, the Almighty has provided this great and glorious gift. It springs forth and reveals the path of faith from within the believers. We this faith manifest itself in the peace that allowed Paul and Silas to sing hymns at midnight after being beaten and imprisoned.

Certainly, God wants us to be open and seeking this gift. May he fill our hearts with supernaturally derived faith as well as the growing trust in the faithfulness of our Savior.

Resolutions for 2012

Here are a couple resoutions that I am prayerfully considering.
   1. To develop a more intensive prayer life
   2. To refuse to compromise my character or my soul
   3. To develop and maintain a healthy lifestyle
   4. To honor my wife- she deserves it for living with me!
   5. To love the unloveable and God's difficult children
   6. To Challenge myself on leadership through reading and relationships
   7. To Persevere in tough times
   8. To Speak truth- even when it will not be well received
   9. To lead from internal conviction and yet to listen to those around me

   10. To increase savings and giving to others

Spiritual Gifts #2

We continue on to discuss the gift of knowledge. There are those who seem to feel as if this is a residential gift in the mind-heart of an individual. As if God places an occasional smarty pants in the body of Christ who knows things. Now, I want to thank God for the hundreds of people who are smarter than me in the church where I serve. They have been a resource to the church and to myself in confusing times. But though they are operating in knowledge they are not operating in the gift of the Word of knowledge. The Word of Knowledge is a revelation based gift- much like the Word of Wisdom that we wrote about earlier. The Word of Knowledge comes usually in a time of prayer although, occasionally it just shows up in our minds while we are about the business of ministry. It isn't, as one author writes " the ability to understand scripture in a way that only comes by revelation". That is a dangerous and unbibilical doctrine! Scripture is to be used to judge revelation not the other way around. The objective standard of the Word of God always is the measuring stick of the subjective revelation of the prophetic and revelatory gifts.

The Lord moves among his church in profound ways. His purpose is to work his will of strengthening, encouraging, comforting, healing, etc among the body of Christ. He does so by revealing a bit of knowledge to someone open to the gift so that it may be used by God to instigate the process of healing or strengthening. For instance, we read of Jesus knowing that he had been touched by someone with faith. The woman with the issue of blood was revealed to Jesus by a word of knowledge. Clearly the Spirit revealed that to Jesus. (We know that many of the miracles of Jesus were done by the anointing of the Holy Spirit on his life because he claimed in the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4) that that is what drove him to do the miraculous. And we have Luke's synopsis of Jesus' ministry  in Acts 10.38 where it clearly says that his ministry of "doing good, healing all who were under the power of the devil" was Spirit directed.) But we also see similar working of these gift in the body of Christ in the book of Acts. Peter should have been pretty impressed with the offering placed at his feet in Acts 5. But he knows something is amiss. He calls Ananias to task saying things that could only be known by a revelation of God.

Thankfully, the Word of Knowledge doesn't always end with someone being struck down by God! Often it is used to establish trust in the heart of someone so they may receive a prophetic directive or a Word of Wisdom which is to follow. " I saw you under the fig tree..." Jesus said to Nathanael. This fact known by revelation opened up Nathanael to the rest of Jesus' ministry. So as your seeking the greater gifts in obedience to God command in 1 Cor 12.31 include an openness to the Word of Knowledge.

Understanding Spiritual Gifts 1

As I perused the internet looking for some information regarding the gifts of the Holy Spirit I became increasingly concerned that not only do many not practice the gifts but many are so ignorant of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that they cannot even define them correctly. Disconcerting to say the least! How can we be a Spirit-filled people if we cannot define the objective descriptions of the Spirit's working among us?

So let's take a look at the 9 charisms mentioned in 1 Cor 12. Other sections of Scripture speak of motivational giftings and offices within the church but 1 Cor 12 clearly identifies these gifts as manifestation gifts. Their purpose is to reveal the Word of God, the Mind of God, and the Power of God to the situations within the believers gathered. John F. MacArthur is certainly no sympathizer with the charismatic movement but is forced to acknowledge that these gifts were "specific enablements" for the purpose of "authenticating or confirming God's Word". Unfortunately, MacArthur himself has called these gifts "temporary sign gifts"-despite the complete lack of any indication in this (or any other) text that these gifts were designed to be temporary. Miracles were common in the first century among those followers of Christ. So much so that some miracles became "ordinary" (Acts 19.11). They were not worked strictly by the Apostles alone. Indeed, the NT records many healings and miracles by those outside the 12. Paul seems to be encouraging the proper use of the charismata in 1 Cor 12. It is clear that the purpose is to manifest the Spirit for the common good (12.7) Donald Gee reminds us that these gifts arose out of individuals who had been personally filled with the Spirit. He writes, "The very phrase "manifestation of the Spirit" makes this clear. The Greek Word is phanerosis, 'a shining forth.' The nine gifts...are examples of different ways in which the indwelling Spirit might reveal himself through believers."
So, let's examine these manifestation gifts.

The Message (Word) of Wisdom- This is more than some sanctified natural gifting. It has little to do with human intelligence. All of these gifts are divinely imparted. Since the gift of healing has little to do with medical science- wisdom should not be expected to be connected to intelligence. Neither is the Word of Wisdom simply the application of the divine wisdom that comes down (James 3.17). That is the application of the teachings of Jesus. One author I read taught that the Word of Wisdom was a way of proper interpretation of Scripture. As important as good hermenuetics is, it is not connected to the Word of Wisdom. The Message of Wisdom is a spiritually imparted nugget of divine purpose and application. It is differentiated from the Word of Knowledge in that it gives a directive on what should happen based upon God's perspective. It is the revelation of God's mind on what to do in a particular situation. It is actionable. It is recognizable in the council rooms and board rooms of the church when the leadership is prayerfully seeking to honor God. It is seen in prayer meetings and presbyteries over those who are seeking direction for life and ministry. It is seen occassionally at the altar, as the Holy Spirit moves through everyday christians caring for one another. We see evidence of this revealing of the divine tactic in Acts 13.1f, when during a time of prayer, worship and fasting, the Holy Spirit said "Set apart for me Barnabus and Saul to the work I have called them." Before this we have no indication that Paul would lead a great missionary endeavor. But God knew what to do when the believers gathered did not. God can see the future, knows intimately the giftings of individuals, and can choose to reveal this to the seeking church to clearly direct the path of the church.

I have experienced the Word of Wisdom on numerous occasions. I often look back upon those keystone moments. They are like the divinely inspired stepping stones of my life. Looking back I see confirmed the path of God's plan and am encouraged. God sent men and women at key moments in my life to speak a Word of Wisdom to me regarding the direction of my life and ministry. When I am facing decisions that are not clear, I seek the Lord and he helps me by his Holy Spirit. often God uses others to speak a Word of Wisdom to me. It is not the wisdom of their age, nor the wisdom of scriptural principles, for these are too broad. This is the Wisdom perscription from Jesus. Is this not what we mean when we say Spirit led? Let the Spirit lead you in to his purpose by being open to the Word of Wisdom. Seek it out, desire it, be eager to be used in that gift and you will not only live a profitable life for the Kingdom of God but you will be a blessing to those around you.

When the Athiest Dies

Today Christopher Hitchens died. He was 62 and lost his battle to esophageal cancer. His career as a provocative journalist and his penchant for attacking religion- especially Christianity- established him in some circles among the intellectual elites in Britian. He was the author of  God is not Great (Twelve Books), a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, and visiting professor of liberal studies to the New School. Hitchens published a series of letters to Douglas Wilson entitled "Is Christianity Good for the World?". These are worth the read by folks of either persuasion.

He leaves behind 3 children and a wife. For those of us who are believers, we recognize the ultimate sadness is that in spite of engaging with some of the most brilliant minds in Christendom he has slipped into a Christless eternity and is destined for perdition. Yet, he had powerful witnesses to faith and will be judged according to the truth he knew. Certainly he had rejected, even at the end, the message that a real salvation comes to those who place their faith in Christ, and not in their own intellect.

How about your friends, loved ones, and neighbors? Have you given them an adequate witness of faith to offer them a way out from spiritual ruin? Paul said to the Ephesians " I am innocent of the blood of all men for I have not hesitated to proclaim the whole will of God..." (Acts 20.26f)- have we been faithful proclaimers of God"s message of Grace and Love to those who are in our lives? After all the love of God extends to them as well. Christ followers need to speak up before it is too late.

Worse than an Unbeliever

Reading the Tribune the other day and the author reminisced about his father who worked 2 jobs in order to keep food on the table and heat in the house. And as I pondered on that for a while I realized that I didn't know very many men who worked that hard for their family. For all the complaints about "living wages" and union benefits I don't know too many who are working a FT job and a PT job as well. Some won't even look for work.

Paul wrote to Timothy, "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." (1 Tim 5.8)

Of course there are circumstances that mitigate this a bit- such as a horrible economy, but I am thinking that this is extremely harsh language. How is a believer ever WORSE than an unbeliever?

1.) He is worse in that his witness is blown. We represent God to our families. And as fathers we are to be haveing our hearts turned toward our children (Mal 4.6). Even the unbelievers would look with distain upon a man who doesn't care for his family.

2.) He is worse because he fails to do his part and then blames God for not providing.

3.) He is worse because he shames the name of the ultimate provider- Jehovah jireh by not working in conjunction with Him.

Seems that our view of work as menial or trivial is far from the reformers views of "vocation" and calling. Further, if we see certina forms of labor as beneath us is that not a form of pride?

Strange Fire in the House of the Lord

by J. Lee Grady

We need to be careful. Current fads involving angels, ecstatic worship and necromancy could push us off the edge of spiritual sanity.
No one fully understands what Nadab and Abihu did to prompt God to strike them dead in the sanctuary of Israel. The Bible says they loaded their firepans with incense, ignited the substance and "offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them" (Lev. 10:1, NASB). As a result of their careless and irreverent behavior, fire came from God's presence and consumed them.

Zap. In an instant they were ashes.

When Moses had to explain to Aaron what happened to the two men, he said: "It is what the Lord spoke, saying, ‘By those who come near to Me I will be treated as holy, and before all the people I will be honored'" (v. 3). Although we don't know the details of what Nadab and his brother did with the holy incense, we know they were careless and irreverent about the things of God.

"We want the miracles of God, but we also want the fear and reverence of God. We cannot allow this strange fire to spread unchecked."

This ancient story has relevant application for us today. We don't use incense or firepans in our worship, but we are expected to handle God's Word with care and minister to His people in the fear of the Lord. In other words: No funny business allowed. We aren't allowed to mix God's Word with foreign concepts or mix our worship with pagan practices.

Yet as I minister in various churches around this country I am finding that strange fire is spreading in our midst-even in churches that call themselves "Spirit-filled." Pastors and leaders need to be aware of these trends:

1. Deadly visitations. In some charismatic circles today, people are claiming to have spiritual experiences that involve communication with the dead. One Michigan pastor told me last week that some church leaders he knows promote this bizarre practice and base it on Jesus' experience on the Mount of Transfiguration. The logic is that since Jesus talked to Moses and Elijah on the day He was glorified, this gives us permission to talk to dead Christians and our dead relatives.

Although little is said about these experiences from the pulpit (since the average believer is not ready to handle this "new revelation"), people in some streams of the prophetic movement are claiming to have visitations from Aimee Semple McPherson, William Branham, John Wimber or various Bible characters. And we are expected to say, "Ooooooo, that's so deep"-and then go looking for our own mystical, beyond-the-grave epiphany.

That is creepy. Communication with the dead was strictly forbidden in the Old Testament (see Deut. 18:11), and there is nothing in the New that indicates the rules were changed. Those who seek counsel from the dead-whether through mediums and séances or in "prophetic visions"-are taking a dangerous step toward demonization.

2. Ecstatic rapture. Not long after ecstasy became known as a recreational drug, someone in our movement got the bright idea to promote spiritual ecstasy as a form of legitimate worship. The concept evolved from "spiritual drunkenness" to the current fad in which people gather at church altars and pretend to shoot needles in their arms for a "spiritual high." Some preachers today are encouraging people to "toke the Holy Ghost"-a reference to smoking marijuana.

I hate to be a party pooper, but the Bible warns us to "be of sound judgment and sober spirit" (1 Pet. 4:7). There is plenty of freedom and joy in the Holy Spirit; we don't have to quench it by introducing people to pagan revelry. Christian worship is not about losing control. Those who worship Jesus do it "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24), and our love for God is not measured by how violently we shake or how many times we fall on the floor.

Recently I told a friend in Pennsylvania that when people get tired of this drug imagery it won't be long before we see some Christians having sexual experiences at the altar. "It's already happening," my friend said. He described a recent "worship concert" in which one of the musicians simulated sex while stroking a microphone and whispering sensual phrases to Jesus. What is next-orgasmic worship? God help us.

3. Angels among us. Angels have always played a vital role in the life of the church. They are "ministering spirits" sent to protect, guide and strengthen believers (Heb. 1:14). But suddenly angels have become the rage in some segments of our movement. People are claiming to see them everywhere, and often the stories don't line up with the Word of God.

During the Lakeland Revival last year in Florida, a man from Germany took the stage and claimed that an angel walked into a restaurant while he was eating a hamburger, took his intestines out and replaced them with a gold substance. Others have testified that angels took them to heaven and operated on them. And many are claiming that angels are dropping feathers, gold dust and precious gems on worshippers.

I know God can do anything. He can make an iron axe head float, hide a coin in a fish's mouth and use a little boy's lunch to feed a multitude. Those were genuine miracles that He can still do today. But we still have to use caution here. There are counterfeits. If we promote a false miracle or a false angel in the Lord's house, we are participating in strange fire.

I know of a case where a man was caught planting fake jewels on the floor of a church. He told his friends he was "seeding the room" to lift the people's faith. I know of others who have been caught putting gold glitter on themselves in a restroom and then running back in a church service, only to claim that God was blessing them with this special favor. Where is the fear of God when Christians would actually fabricate a miracle?

This is a time for all true believers with backbones to draw clear lines between what is godly worship and what is pagan practice. We want the miracles of God, but we also want the fear and reverence of God. We cannot allow this strange fire to spread unchecked.

J. Lee Grady is editor of Charisma.

Lincoln's Prayers of Thanksgiving

After Gettysburg President Abraham Lincoln wrote his Thanksgiving Proclaimation where he wrote "I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union."

If we are to be consistent with the Spirit of the holiday as Lincoln understood it, we should be offering 4 prayers.

1. Praise to God for his Goodness
2. Repentance for sins and rebellion as a nation
3. Petitions for mercy for all those without
4. Healing for our nation



May I suggest that we forget about the Turkey and the desserts for a few moments this Thanksgiving and pray these four things that we may show due deference to the God of the blessings and know from whence they have come.