We are not really anti-education per se, to the contrary we are actually quite pro-education; but the question that this assertion opens up and lays out on the table for discussion and review is, "What precisely is meant by the term 'education' "?
Is education really the mere acquisition of a multitude of 'facts', so-called? If it is, then the student or person with the greatest collection of facts stored in their mind is obviously the best educated. What then is the meaning or the purpose in the accumulation of all these facts? Is a person's value as a person determined by the size or amount or perceived quality of the facts accumulated? Is the accumulation of facts the chief end of our lives, or the chief inheritance bequeathed upon our children? And how many of these facts will prove to actually be truth?
We contend that the primary purpose and responsibility of parents is not to accomplish in their child the best education as it is generally conceived of, but to transplant to their child an accurate (that is a biblical) world view – which necessarily includes an accurate view of God and ultimate metaphysical (that is spiritual) reality, with the chief end in view of leading them to embracing the Creator God of the Bible, and giving their entire life over to the control (lordship) of His Son, the God-Man, Jesus Christ. Anything that is not immediately conducive of this end is to be viewed with suspicion, and anything that is positively contrary should be viewed with alarm and avoided.
This, for one example, is why we do not participate in our culture's indulgent perpetuation of the Santa Claus lie: actively and purposefully deceiving your child about a matter of ultimate reality is directly contradictory to transplanting into the child of an accurate view of ultimate reality – particularly about a major focal point of the formation of world view in the child's mind. (Those who are inclined to doubt the importance of Santa as a major focal point of the child's mindset should keep an eye and ear out during the next Christmas season for every appearance of the Jolly Old Elf in every conversation, and setting, and medium available to the child. The mere fact that we have to remind ourselves that Jesus is supposed to be the reason for the season speaks volumes. Clearly the real focus of Christmas is the arrival of Santa on Christmas Eve.)
Unfortunately, most of 'education' at best is not immediately conducive to transplanting an accurate, biblical world view; and much of education – particularly at the college level – is actively hostile to this idea. It may be (may be) that this so-called education is successful in producing a higher overall lifetime of financial prosperity than would otherwise be, but it is unlikely that Jesus will be waiting at the moment of our death to ask for a cash advance or the professional expertise that He has been missing up to now. Each of us will be judged according to the godliness or ungodliness of the things that we have done, the words that we have spoken, and the thoughts that we have thought, and not according to the titles before our name, the degrees listed afterward, or the vastness (or meagerness) of our accumulations of wealth.
In other words, there is certainly immense practical value in a child learning his 'twy-stymes', and nothing particularly wrong with knowing where a place called Brazil is, but what is he going to do with it? Is he going to use his twy-stymes to safeguard the integrity of his own family, or to shade the truth in a way that works out to his own advantage and someone else's detriment? Will he use his knowledge of where a place called Brazil is merely to advance the already bloated acquisitions of a vast corporation that has no concern about the people who fall under their sway and shadow, or to relieve the ignorance and suffering of brothers and sisters in a spiritually dark place?
Monday, December 26, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
A Church without a Pastor?
It is very hard for most Christians to imagine a church without a Pastor. This unbiblical clergy idea has been so intermingled with Christianity for so long that the very idea of how a church could exist and function without 'The Pastor' is absolutely inconceivable, especially to Pastors. Still, the fact remains that there are no Pastors mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
How can these things be?
Part of it is an unbiblical idea of the Body of Christ to begin with. 'Church' is actually quite different from the Ekklesia that Jesus established, that we see and read about in the Bible. Perhaps nothing shows this difference more than the church-building. Although church-people quickly admit that the building is not the church (in the sense of being the Body of Christ), nevertheless they are the very first to refer to the building as the Church. We recently visited a local church where the Pastor happened to choose that very morning to launch a 'We Need a New Church-Building' campaign. Unbelievably, they were sitting in the already new church-building that isn't even two years old yet, and for which they are still in debt. Yet the Pastor was manipulating these poor people into believing that God was not satisfied with the old building, they needed to get started on a new building program, and those who might not be too sure about this were 'naysayers' who were standing in the way of God's will. He whipped up emotions about the will of God for the whole service, and then passed out pledge cards for people to commit to.
Guess what it said in bold letters at the top of the pledge cards: On This Rock I Will Build My Church.
This is just not at all what Jesus was talking about.
In the Bible, the Ekklesias of God were all (everywhere, in every place) led by a team of local, unpaid, un-seminaried men from among the local Body called Elders. In different places the Bible also calls them Overseers and Shepherds. Paul and Peter both clearly identify them as being Elders, Overseers, and Shepherds. There was never just one alone, there was never a 'Pastor' over them, and, unlike the Apostles, they were expected to provide a living for themselves and not be provided for by the Ekklesia. The closest thing the Bible has to a 'Pastor' is Diotrophes in John 3, who John condemns because he 'loves to have the pre-eminence among them.'
When the Ekklesia is led by true biblical Elders there is only one head to the body – Jesus.
But, what about Timothy and Titus? Weren't they 'Pastors'? 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are the 'Pastoral Letters'!
Yes, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are often called the 'Pastoral Letters', because they deal with the establishment of proper oversight (shepherding) of the Ekklesias. No, Timothy and Titus were not Pastors, they were Paul's assistants. They have been called Apostolic Delegates, or members of Paul's Ministry Team. They might possibly even qualify as Apostles themselves because, whatever you call them, they were two of a group of men that served Paul and whom he 'sent' (apostle, sent one) wherever he needed, and called them back as he had need. Some of these men that we know of were Timothy, Titus, Tychicus, Artemas, Demas, Crescens, Erastus, and Trophimus.
In Titus, Paul has left Titus in Crete 'to set in order the things that remain' in the Ekklesias there, chief of which is the establishment of Elders. At the end of the letter he tells Titus that he will send Artemas or Tychicus to replace him as Paul's representative there. In 1 Timothy, Timothy has also been left behind in Ephesus for the very same purposes. 1 Timothy does not tell us who is to replace Timothy in Ephesus, but in 2 Timothy we know that he is no longer in Ephesus because Paul tells him that he has 'sent' (apostle, sent one) Tychicus to Ephesus. These men were Apostolic Delegates, Paul's Assistants, coming and going at Paul's command wherever he had need of, helping Paul to get Ekklesias started (with proper Elder leadership) or helping Paul to get them back on the right track.
I know, I know, it is very hard for most Christians to imagine a church without a Pastor. This unbiblical clergy idea has been so intermingled with Christianity for so long that the very idea of how a church could exist and function without 'The Pastor' is absolutely inconceivable, especially to Pastors. Still, the fact remains that there are no Pastors mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
How can these things be?
Part of it is an unbiblical idea of the Body of Christ to begin with. 'Church' is actually quite different from the Ekklesia that Jesus established, that we see and read about in the Bible. Perhaps nothing shows this difference more than the church-building. Although church-people quickly admit that the building is not the church (in the sense of being the Body of Christ), nevertheless they are the very first to refer to the building as the Church. We recently visited a local church where the Pastor happened to choose that very morning to launch a 'We Need a New Church-Building' campaign. Unbelievably, they were sitting in the already new church-building that isn't even two years old yet, and for which they are still in debt. Yet the Pastor was manipulating these poor people into believing that God was not satisfied with the old building, they needed to get started on a new building program, and those who might not be too sure about this were 'naysayers' who were standing in the way of God's will. He whipped up emotions about the will of God for the whole service, and then passed out pledge cards for people to commit to.
Guess what it said in bold letters at the top of the pledge cards: On This Rock I Will Build My Church.
This is just not at all what Jesus was talking about.
In the Bible, the Ekklesias of God were all (everywhere, in every place) led by a team of local, unpaid, un-seminaried men from among the local Body called Elders. In different places the Bible also calls them Overseers and Shepherds. Paul and Peter both clearly identify them as being Elders, Overseers, and Shepherds. There was never just one alone, there was never a 'Pastor' over them, and, unlike the Apostles, they were expected to provide a living for themselves and not be provided for by the Ekklesia. The closest thing the Bible has to a 'Pastor' is Diotrophes in John 3, who John condemns because he 'loves to have the pre-eminence among them.'
When the Ekklesia is led by true biblical Elders there is only one head to the body – Jesus.
But, what about Timothy and Titus? Weren't they 'Pastors'? 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are the 'Pastoral Letters'!
Yes, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are often called the 'Pastoral Letters', because they deal with the establishment of proper oversight (shepherding) of the Ekklesias. No, Timothy and Titus were not Pastors, they were Paul's assistants. They have been called Apostolic Delegates, or members of Paul's Ministry Team. They might possibly even qualify as Apostles themselves because, whatever you call them, they were two of a group of men that served Paul and whom he 'sent' (apostle, sent one) wherever he needed, and called them back as he had need. Some of these men that we know of were Timothy, Titus, Tychicus, Artemas, Demas, Crescens, Erastus, and Trophimus.
In Titus, Paul has left Titus in Crete 'to set in order the things that remain' in the Ekklesias there, chief of which is the establishment of Elders. At the end of the letter he tells Titus that he will send Artemas or Tychicus to replace him as Paul's representative there. In 1 Timothy, Timothy has also been left behind in Ephesus for the very same purposes. 1 Timothy does not tell us who is to replace Timothy in Ephesus, but in 2 Timothy we know that he is no longer in Ephesus because Paul tells him that he has 'sent' (apostle, sent one) Tychicus to Ephesus. These men were Apostolic Delegates, Paul's Assistants, coming and going at Paul's command wherever he had need of, helping Paul to get Ekklesias started (with proper Elder leadership) or helping Paul to get them back on the right track.
I know, I know, it is very hard for most Christians to imagine a church without a Pastor. This unbiblical clergy idea has been so intermingled with Christianity for so long that the very idea of how a church could exist and function without 'The Pastor' is absolutely inconceivable, especially to Pastors. Still, the fact remains that there are no Pastors mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
What Your Third Grader Needs To Know
As a homeschool family we can often be found at the local public library. We have a reasonably respectable collection of books ourselves (most of which were acquired secondhand, or at least marked down) but few private homes can collect the equivalent of a decent public library. Ours is that, decent, but just that – but the ability to request books from any library throughout almost the entire State of Georgia is a powerful tool in your educational garden shed. Currently I am rereading The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris, which I requested through the library system, an important and worthwhile book that every Christian should be familiar with and non-christians should take more seriously.
This week my beautiful wife found a previously unnoticed book entitled What Your Third Grader Needs to Know, Fundamentals of a Good Third Grade Education edited by E. D. Hirsch, Jr.
I must admit to complete ignorance about the person of E.D. Hirsch, Jr. It is a nicely done book, but seems to be typical of educationalist thinking in our culture – namely that any reading is good reading as long as your child is reading. An enormous amount of people espouse this peculiar idea – probably the vast majority of people – and do not consider that there is any real intrinsic value – or rather lack thereof – in varying literature. You can see that idea clearly displayed at the local public library where they have posters all over the wall trying to get youngsters to read currently popular vampire stories, so that at least they will be reading. Strangely, most adults have (in our experience) some realization that there is questionable (to say the least) value to such literature, "But," they say, "At least my child is reading!"
Well I, an avid reader since early childhood, would like to respectfully submit to you that there are many things out there (such as, but by no means limited to, vampires and Harry Potter) that it would be better if your child did not read at all than to read such things.
Keep in mind that what I say here assumes the reader to be a genuine Christian who has committed his or her life to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Wearing a cross or going to church does not necessarily equate to this, and if you have not made this commitment it is your top priority. Until you do so it you cannot properly understand what I am saying, and all that you do is headed to the incinerator anyway. Don't wait any longer!
What Your Third Grader Needs to Know does have some stuff of legitimate value in it, particularly early American history, regarding which both children and adults in our nation are woefully ill equipped. I strongly dispute, however, that any child of any age 'needs' to know about the pagan 'gods' of Greece, Rome, and Scandinavia (or anywhere else). The Bible explicitly teaches us that the 'gods' these people worshiped are no-gods and are in fact, actually, demons; that the day is coming when they will no more be named, and that in fact their names will never again even come to mind. Why may I ask does a child need to read the tales of ancient no-gods who are actually present-day demons, by which these ancient peoples were bound in abject darkness, and many people in the present-day world are bound in terrible darkness by such demonic 'gods'? Why on earth should your children be learning such things?
Now I am by no means suggesting that your child not be taught the objective truth of the darkness of the pagan religions so as to have a proper (that is a biblical, a godly) perspective, but that is not accomplished by allowing or encouraging them to immerse themselves in those ancient mythological tales. Through those tales the ancients were held in bondage. Through those tales many today are still in dark bandage and hateful rebellion against Christ. Through those tales a great many people through the ages have been held back from the fullness of Christ though living in a 'Christian' age.
Is that really what you want for your child?
If it is, are you not then yourself in the bondage of darkness to these wicked haters of mankind for whom the horrors of Nazi Germany are only a warm-up exercise?
What does your child need to know? Really need?
2. Your child needs to know how to read and write fluently.
3. Your child needs to have a good solid grasp on basic math.
These two are basic skills or education and living that will be needed at all levels. Beyond that, there is only one subject that is truly needed, a subject which comes before even those two:
1. The number one thing your child absolutely, positively, utterly needs to know, above all things – above even reading, writing, and math – is a proper biblical understanding of the world and reality including the fact that they are sinners by nature and by choice, that they will have to stand before Jesus to give an account of all they have done, and that Jesus died and rose so that they can be able to stand before Him when the time comes. This is not a mere, "Yes, yes, of course, of course.." but is the very essence of your whole purpose!
Your primary, number one, top job as a parent is to give your child this biblical world view. To orient their mind entirely around a proper biblical way of thinking about every single issue and subject and problem and opportunity that they will face. Every game they play. Every word they speak. Every glance they take. Every interaction they have. Even the ability to read and write are secondary to this. When your child stands before the Lord Jesus He will not ask them to read anything to Him or to do any sums. The Bible says the highway of righteousness is one that, whoever travels it, though a fool, will not go astray.
Obviously we do not want to raise fools, so education is needed, and also expected by God. But some of the brightest minds on the planet, having rejected Christ, are going into the fire like so much rubbish off the streets. Then who will be the fool?
We are here for a very, very short time. Even if your child live to the fullest potential of life on this earth of 120 years it is not even a small speck of fine dust on the scales of eternity. Your number one top priority is to make sure they have real saving faith in the Lordship of Jesus, that they truly 'kiss the son before His wrath is kindled' (Psalm 2). After that, your absolute top priority is to mold and shape their mind according to the mind of God – which is revealed to us in the Bible – the best you can.
You cannot do that if you are busy shaping their mind, or allowing it to be shaped, by ungodly, unbiblical things that are actually opposing the reality of Christ, such as:
• Pagan Mythology of all kinds – even if they supposedly teach 'values'. The values you need are in the Bible. Remember we are at war here, and the demons behind these pagan mythologies are the very powers we are at war with!
• Harry Potter or Vampire Stories or almost all Science Fiction / Fantasy. In fact the realm of fiction in general is pretty contrary to a proper Biblical mindset. This is shocking to the modern mind, but true. Consider, the Bible deals with Truth, Jesus is the Truth, and the authority of God over your life is Truth. Since fiction is inherently dealing with untruth, it naturally tends to be in opposition to the Truth. Not absolutely and in all cases whatsoever, but much more often than not. Fiction in your mind is analogous to Twinkies in your diet. The less eaten the better. We are at war!
• Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Sorry parents but you cannot selfishly indulge yourselves in these Lies without inherently and inescapably teaching your child that the view that you have purposefully given to them about what is true in life is not true after all. This can and does have serious ramifications down the line. This stuff is serious business and we are at war!
• 'Classical Literature' like Alice in Wonderland, Aladdin, Ali Baba, Treasure Island, etc., etc. See Harry Potter above. Many of these stories teach unbiblical ideas, choices, and behavior that all just works out in the end. We are at war!
• Evolutionary thinking. Evolutionary origin-of-life and billions-of-years geology strikes at the very foundations of the Gospel. But guess what? Those scientists were not there when the foundations were laid, and you are not going to have to stand before Charles Darwin and give an account. We are at war!
Believe it or not the primary value of reading is not for mere enjoyment or entertainment, although that might enter in. The primary value of reading is that one should actually read the Bible for oneself. The primary reason to teach your child to read is that they might read the scriptures for themselves. You need it. They need it. They need you to do it. They do not need Lewis Carroll or the tales that shaped the minds of Viking butchers.
This week my beautiful wife found a previously unnoticed book entitled What Your Third Grader Needs to Know, Fundamentals of a Good Third Grade Education edited by E. D. Hirsch, Jr.
I must admit to complete ignorance about the person of E.D. Hirsch, Jr. It is a nicely done book, but seems to be typical of educationalist thinking in our culture – namely that any reading is good reading as long as your child is reading. An enormous amount of people espouse this peculiar idea – probably the vast majority of people – and do not consider that there is any real intrinsic value – or rather lack thereof – in varying literature. You can see that idea clearly displayed at the local public library where they have posters all over the wall trying to get youngsters to read currently popular vampire stories, so that at least they will be reading. Strangely, most adults have (in our experience) some realization that there is questionable (to say the least) value to such literature, "But," they say, "At least my child is reading!"
Well I, an avid reader since early childhood, would like to respectfully submit to you that there are many things out there (such as, but by no means limited to, vampires and Harry Potter) that it would be better if your child did not read at all than to read such things.
Keep in mind that what I say here assumes the reader to be a genuine Christian who has committed his or her life to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Wearing a cross or going to church does not necessarily equate to this, and if you have not made this commitment it is your top priority. Until you do so it you cannot properly understand what I am saying, and all that you do is headed to the incinerator anyway. Don't wait any longer!
What Your Third Grader Needs to Know does have some stuff of legitimate value in it, particularly early American history, regarding which both children and adults in our nation are woefully ill equipped. I strongly dispute, however, that any child of any age 'needs' to know about the pagan 'gods' of Greece, Rome, and Scandinavia (or anywhere else). The Bible explicitly teaches us that the 'gods' these people worshiped are no-gods and are in fact, actually, demons; that the day is coming when they will no more be named, and that in fact their names will never again even come to mind. Why may I ask does a child need to read the tales of ancient no-gods who are actually present-day demons, by which these ancient peoples were bound in abject darkness, and many people in the present-day world are bound in terrible darkness by such demonic 'gods'? Why on earth should your children be learning such things?
Now I am by no means suggesting that your child not be taught the objective truth of the darkness of the pagan religions so as to have a proper (that is a biblical, a godly) perspective, but that is not accomplished by allowing or encouraging them to immerse themselves in those ancient mythological tales. Through those tales the ancients were held in bondage. Through those tales many today are still in dark bandage and hateful rebellion against Christ. Through those tales a great many people through the ages have been held back from the fullness of Christ though living in a 'Christian' age.
Is that really what you want for your child?
If it is, are you not then yourself in the bondage of darkness to these wicked haters of mankind for whom the horrors of Nazi Germany are only a warm-up exercise?
What does your child need to know? Really need?
2. Your child needs to know how to read and write fluently.
3. Your child needs to have a good solid grasp on basic math.
These two are basic skills or education and living that will be needed at all levels. Beyond that, there is only one subject that is truly needed, a subject which comes before even those two:
1. The number one thing your child absolutely, positively, utterly needs to know, above all things – above even reading, writing, and math – is a proper biblical understanding of the world and reality including the fact that they are sinners by nature and by choice, that they will have to stand before Jesus to give an account of all they have done, and that Jesus died and rose so that they can be able to stand before Him when the time comes. This is not a mere, "Yes, yes, of course, of course.." but is the very essence of your whole purpose!
Your primary, number one, top job as a parent is to give your child this biblical world view. To orient their mind entirely around a proper biblical way of thinking about every single issue and subject and problem and opportunity that they will face. Every game they play. Every word they speak. Every glance they take. Every interaction they have. Even the ability to read and write are secondary to this. When your child stands before the Lord Jesus He will not ask them to read anything to Him or to do any sums. The Bible says the highway of righteousness is one that, whoever travels it, though a fool, will not go astray.
Obviously we do not want to raise fools, so education is needed, and also expected by God. But some of the brightest minds on the planet, having rejected Christ, are going into the fire like so much rubbish off the streets. Then who will be the fool?
We are here for a very, very short time. Even if your child live to the fullest potential of life on this earth of 120 years it is not even a small speck of fine dust on the scales of eternity. Your number one top priority is to make sure they have real saving faith in the Lordship of Jesus, that they truly 'kiss the son before His wrath is kindled' (Psalm 2). After that, your absolute top priority is to mold and shape their mind according to the mind of God – which is revealed to us in the Bible – the best you can.
You cannot do that if you are busy shaping their mind, or allowing it to be shaped, by ungodly, unbiblical things that are actually opposing the reality of Christ, such as:
• Pagan Mythology of all kinds – even if they supposedly teach 'values'. The values you need are in the Bible. Remember we are at war here, and the demons behind these pagan mythologies are the very powers we are at war with!
• Harry Potter or Vampire Stories or almost all Science Fiction / Fantasy. In fact the realm of fiction in general is pretty contrary to a proper Biblical mindset. This is shocking to the modern mind, but true. Consider, the Bible deals with Truth, Jesus is the Truth, and the authority of God over your life is Truth. Since fiction is inherently dealing with untruth, it naturally tends to be in opposition to the Truth. Not absolutely and in all cases whatsoever, but much more often than not. Fiction in your mind is analogous to Twinkies in your diet. The less eaten the better. We are at war!
• Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Sorry parents but you cannot selfishly indulge yourselves in these Lies without inherently and inescapably teaching your child that the view that you have purposefully given to them about what is true in life is not true after all. This can and does have serious ramifications down the line. This stuff is serious business and we are at war!
• 'Classical Literature' like Alice in Wonderland, Aladdin, Ali Baba, Treasure Island, etc., etc. See Harry Potter above. Many of these stories teach unbiblical ideas, choices, and behavior that all just works out in the end. We are at war!
• Evolutionary thinking. Evolutionary origin-of-life and billions-of-years geology strikes at the very foundations of the Gospel. But guess what? Those scientists were not there when the foundations were laid, and you are not going to have to stand before Charles Darwin and give an account. We are at war!
Believe it or not the primary value of reading is not for mere enjoyment or entertainment, although that might enter in. The primary value of reading is that one should actually read the Bible for oneself. The primary reason to teach your child to read is that they might read the scriptures for themselves. You need it. They need it. They need you to do it. They do not need Lewis Carroll or the tales that shaped the minds of Viking butchers.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Parade Ground
Have you ever seen one of those military movies where they start in with the new recruits at boot camp? They start out as fresh faced naive kids who don't have any idea of what is about to transpire, Then the movie cuts to scene after scene of drilling, marching, being yelled and screamed at, being humiliated, being disciplined, scrambling over obstacles, struggling through the mud, learning to use their rifles effectively, and all kinds of scenarios intended to show them enduring difficulty and hardship in order not only to teach them how to have the basic fighting skills but also to work together as a unit and follow orders. By the end of the 'boot camp' you can hardly recognize them for the change that has taken place. Now they work and act as a team and know how to use those weapons.
One of my favorite such movies is We Were Soldiers with Mel Gibson and Sam Elliot, about our early involvement in Vietnam. There is a scene where the officers under his command are about to ship out and they are all gathered with friends and family in the bleachers for a sort of commencement ceremony. Mel Gibson as Lt. Col. Hal Moore stands before them in a sort of 'parade uniform with combat helmet' and promises them genuine danger and hardship and that he will do his best.
Imagine if you will the establishment of a new army. In this army, the new recruits are brought in at the beginning of the movie, and seated in the bleachers at the parade ground. Most of them have their rifle with them. Some have their helmets. Some have their boots. Some have their body armor. Some have their issue camo. Most have a mix of various pieces of equipment. A few of them have all of their equipment, and a few are dressed only in their civilian clothes. The officers present themselves before the new recruits on the parade ground. The commanding officer stands at attention before the seated troops, and gives a lengthy dissertation about the rifles they have been issued. He includes some interesting information about the history of firearms in general, the development of repeating arms, and the relative characteristics of the cartridge they have been issued. He gives a lively demonstration of marching and an explanation of how their weapons are fired. Then, they break for lunch.
The next day, after breakfast, they are ushered again onto the parade grounds. Those in attendance have a variety of their equipment as before, though not all present have the same gear: some have more, some have less than the previous day. Some are absent altogether as they have some other things to attend to. The C.O. stands before them again as they are seated in the stands, and talks about the importance of taking cover, keeping low under fire, and communicating effectively. After a while they break for lunch.
Day after day they repeat this same spectacle, coming as they see fit, listening to the Commanding Officer's teaching on all subjects military. He's a good teacher. They like the lessons. They tell him how much they appreciate him when they break for lunch; he pats them on the back and with a warm smile makes sure they know how glad he is that they are in attendance that day.
How do you suppose these people will perform on the field of battle?
This new army is the 'church', made by the hands of man. The people gather together to watch the pastor do his thing. They talk about what a great pastor we have, or what 'pastor' said this morning or last week.
The Ekklesia of God is an armed camp. According to 1 Corinthians 14 they are to interact with one another and to actively engage. And no, coming to Pizza Nite or reading of Sunday School lessons is not actively engaged. (For those of you coming in late, faithful attendance of Sunday School makes you more likely to defend pre-marital sex, abortion, and gay marriage, and less likely to believe that the Bible is really our fully reliable guide.) Against the Jesus' Ekklesia the gates of hell will not prevail.
Funny thing about gates is that someone has to assail them in order for them to not prevail.
One of my favorite such movies is We Were Soldiers with Mel Gibson and Sam Elliot, about our early involvement in Vietnam. There is a scene where the officers under his command are about to ship out and they are all gathered with friends and family in the bleachers for a sort of commencement ceremony. Mel Gibson as Lt. Col. Hal Moore stands before them in a sort of 'parade uniform with combat helmet' and promises them genuine danger and hardship and that he will do his best.
Imagine if you will the establishment of a new army. In this army, the new recruits are brought in at the beginning of the movie, and seated in the bleachers at the parade ground. Most of them have their rifle with them. Some have their helmets. Some have their boots. Some have their body armor. Some have their issue camo. Most have a mix of various pieces of equipment. A few of them have all of their equipment, and a few are dressed only in their civilian clothes. The officers present themselves before the new recruits on the parade ground. The commanding officer stands at attention before the seated troops, and gives a lengthy dissertation about the rifles they have been issued. He includes some interesting information about the history of firearms in general, the development of repeating arms, and the relative characteristics of the cartridge they have been issued. He gives a lively demonstration of marching and an explanation of how their weapons are fired. Then, they break for lunch.
The next day, after breakfast, they are ushered again onto the parade grounds. Those in attendance have a variety of their equipment as before, though not all present have the same gear: some have more, some have less than the previous day. Some are absent altogether as they have some other things to attend to. The C.O. stands before them again as they are seated in the stands, and talks about the importance of taking cover, keeping low under fire, and communicating effectively. After a while they break for lunch.
Day after day they repeat this same spectacle, coming as they see fit, listening to the Commanding Officer's teaching on all subjects military. He's a good teacher. They like the lessons. They tell him how much they appreciate him when they break for lunch; he pats them on the back and with a warm smile makes sure they know how glad he is that they are in attendance that day.
How do you suppose these people will perform on the field of battle?
This new army is the 'church', made by the hands of man. The people gather together to watch the pastor do his thing. They talk about what a great pastor we have, or what 'pastor' said this morning or last week.
The Ekklesia of God is an armed camp. According to 1 Corinthians 14 they are to interact with one another and to actively engage. And no, coming to Pizza Nite or reading of Sunday School lessons is not actively engaged. (For those of you coming in late, faithful attendance of Sunday School makes you more likely to defend pre-marital sex, abortion, and gay marriage, and less likely to believe that the Bible is really our fully reliable guide.) Against the Jesus' Ekklesia the gates of hell will not prevail.
Funny thing about gates is that someone has to assail them in order for them to not prevail.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
An Armed Camp
Here in the nearest town there is a National Guard Armory like their is in many places. I have never been inside one, but I can see from the things that are parked outside of it that they have a lot of serious equipment intended to deal with any serious situation that might come up.
Imagine that there was some sort of genuine national crisis situation. The unthinkable had happened, and some enemy of ours had mounted an armed attack against our country. People were fleeing the enemy, leaving their homes behind and taking whatever they could carry. Bodies are scattered in the streets and in people's yards. Families are separated and frantic. Children wander wounded and hungry searching for their parents. Overwhelmed policemen are falling back under fire, taking casualties while trying to provide some protection for the citizens they serve. Order has completely broken down. (It's not as impossible a scenario as some of you might think.)
National Guardsmen rush to the armory to obtain the equipment they need to carry the fight to the enemy and protect the people. But instead of hummers and equipment trucks they find jet skis and pontoon boats. Instead of hand grenades they find fireworks. Instead of M16s they find grilling tools and really nice outdoor grills. Instead of communications equipment they find MP3 players.
The Ekklesia of God in the Bible is an armed camp, but the 'church', made by men, is just a religious themed social club. And guess what? An armed attack really is taking place on our nation. People really are fleeing the enemy. Families really are scattered and frantic. Children really are wounded and hungry, searching for their parents. Overwhelmed policemen really are falling back under fire, and order really is breaking down. Look around. The enemy is spiritual – the forces of darkness under the control of satan – but real nonetheless. And the damage is real. And when they have accomplished enough spiritual damage to tip the glass over, actual physical chaos will be poured out on our streets. It's not a joke or a some fairy tale.
And America isn't somehow immune because we're so special and God loves us more than all other nations. He has blessed us like this for a purpose, for His own reasons.
And the so-called 'church' really is the Armory filled with entertainment and foolishness.
Imagine that there was some sort of genuine national crisis situation. The unthinkable had happened, and some enemy of ours had mounted an armed attack against our country. People were fleeing the enemy, leaving their homes behind and taking whatever they could carry. Bodies are scattered in the streets and in people's yards. Families are separated and frantic. Children wander wounded and hungry searching for their parents. Overwhelmed policemen are falling back under fire, taking casualties while trying to provide some protection for the citizens they serve. Order has completely broken down. (It's not as impossible a scenario as some of you might think.)
National Guardsmen rush to the armory to obtain the equipment they need to carry the fight to the enemy and protect the people. But instead of hummers and equipment trucks they find jet skis and pontoon boats. Instead of hand grenades they find fireworks. Instead of M16s they find grilling tools and really nice outdoor grills. Instead of communications equipment they find MP3 players.
The Ekklesia of God in the Bible is an armed camp, but the 'church', made by men, is just a religious themed social club. And guess what? An armed attack really is taking place on our nation. People really are fleeing the enemy. Families really are scattered and frantic. Children really are wounded and hungry, searching for their parents. Overwhelmed policemen really are falling back under fire, and order really is breaking down. Look around. The enemy is spiritual – the forces of darkness under the control of satan – but real nonetheless. And the damage is real. And when they have accomplished enough spiritual damage to tip the glass over, actual physical chaos will be poured out on our streets. It's not a joke or a some fairy tale.
And America isn't somehow immune because we're so special and God loves us more than all other nations. He has blessed us like this for a purpose, for His own reasons.
And the so-called 'church' really is the Armory filled with entertainment and foolishness.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
A Ready Writer
A few years ago I was speaking to a friend of mine about Jesus. This friend is a son of Abraham according to the flesh, and is also what is called a neo-pagan.
For those of you who do not know, neo-paganism is an occultic religious movement of people that have purposefully turned away from Christianity and gone back to the darkness of the ancient pagans. 'Wicca' is a familiar example of neo-paganism, although wicca itself is actually a fairly recent and contrived religion. Many neo-pagans seek to go back to the traditional gods of the Germanic, or Scandinavian, or Celtic tribes, or the gods of Greece and Rome, but it also includes eastern gods as in Hinduism, and mixes in all sorts of elements of mysticism and magic, both traditional and contemporary and 'hollywoodish'. Basically anything goes in neo-paganism as long as it is not Christianity, and is also generally anti-Christian.
Why would anybody do this? That is a good question. From my experience with this young man, I would say that it is churchiness that would inspire people to do such a thing. They get just enough of Jesus from their 'church' experiences, a small amount of Jesus mixed in with a lot of worldliness, so that instead of getting infected by the real thing they just become inoculated against it. Their 'church' experiences engender bitterness and/or anger and/or emptiness, and while they are thinking that this is what Christianity is all about satan is able to lead them away into darkness.
This particular young man and his neo-pagan wife grew up together in the Youth Program of the local Baptist 'church'. Like a great many young people who grow up in Youth Programs (somewhere around 70-80% or more depending on the exact research you are looking at) they realized it was mostly hype and cereal filled bologna. Having discovered by way of personal experience that the 'light' available in the 'churches' was really pretty dim and dull, and not knowing enough of the Bible to know that this situation is not at all the fullness of God's Ekklesia, but is actually the shrouding of God's design by human traditions and programs which His people will not let go of, they went looking for spiritual fulfillment elsewhere. I guess there is a certain perverse 'integrity' to the neo-pagan espousal of paganism in all its pagan-ness and saying, "...there wasn't any real substance in the churchiness of the church-people, so I will go and make up my own substance."
Yes, yes I know there isn't any substance there and they are really not the ones doing the making up and one cannot 'make up' substance for oneself anyway because all substance comes solely from the Author of substance Who has revealed Himself to all mankind in the person of Jesus the Messiah – but that does not change the fact that the unbearable churchiness of it all has concealed the weight of God's glory from the minds of these who think that they have seen all that Christianity has to offer.
As we have previously stated, when God's People don't do things God's Way, people get hurt. Real people, real hurt, really. That especially includes having 'churches' instead of the Biblical Ekklesia of the Living God, and no it is not just an issue of semantics.
Talking to my neo-pagan friend about Jesus, he did not question the historical reality of a man named Jesus of Nazareth, but he did question the deity and the supremacy of Jesus, and especially any claim that Jesus might have on his own life. He asserted that the writers of the New Testament wrote things to support ideas that were not really the teachings of Jesus but their own ideas that came after Jesus' death as they tried to deal with the tragic disappointment of His execution which put an end to all their hopes. He asked, "If Jesus really was God, and wanted us to know all of this about Himself and had all this insight for us about what He wanted us to do, why didn't he write it all down for us himself? Why was it all written by other men after His death?"
Now that is actually a good question, and also one which I had never heard of or considered until that moment. I felt at first the feeling of being caught flatfooted and wondering how on earth to answer that one, when I suddenly found rising up inside of me from I knew not where, "God is not a man. God does not do things like a man would do. If a man has something to say he picks up a pen and writes a book. Pens are a creation of men so they can write things to one another. But God did not create pens, He created Man. When a man has something to say He picks up a pen. When God has something to say, He picks up a man."
Some time later, I read concerning Messiah in the Book of the Psalms, "My heart is overflowing with a good theme; I recite my composition concerning the King, my tongue is the pen of a ready writer."
God has given His Word, the Bible, to all the world, for all time, to know Him and His Heart and Truth in Jesus. He did this through a handful of men chosen at various times. When God had something to say to us all, He did not pick up a pen, the creation of a men, He picked up His own creation, men, and used them.
For those of you who do not know, neo-paganism is an occultic religious movement of people that have purposefully turned away from Christianity and gone back to the darkness of the ancient pagans. 'Wicca' is a familiar example of neo-paganism, although wicca itself is actually a fairly recent and contrived religion. Many neo-pagans seek to go back to the traditional gods of the Germanic, or Scandinavian, or Celtic tribes, or the gods of Greece and Rome, but it also includes eastern gods as in Hinduism, and mixes in all sorts of elements of mysticism and magic, both traditional and contemporary and 'hollywoodish'. Basically anything goes in neo-paganism as long as it is not Christianity, and is also generally anti-Christian.
Why would anybody do this? That is a good question. From my experience with this young man, I would say that it is churchiness that would inspire people to do such a thing. They get just enough of Jesus from their 'church' experiences, a small amount of Jesus mixed in with a lot of worldliness, so that instead of getting infected by the real thing they just become inoculated against it. Their 'church' experiences engender bitterness and/or anger and/or emptiness, and while they are thinking that this is what Christianity is all about satan is able to lead them away into darkness.
This particular young man and his neo-pagan wife grew up together in the Youth Program of the local Baptist 'church'. Like a great many young people who grow up in Youth Programs (somewhere around 70-80% or more depending on the exact research you are looking at) they realized it was mostly hype and cereal filled bologna. Having discovered by way of personal experience that the 'light' available in the 'churches' was really pretty dim and dull, and not knowing enough of the Bible to know that this situation is not at all the fullness of God's Ekklesia, but is actually the shrouding of God's design by human traditions and programs which His people will not let go of, they went looking for spiritual fulfillment elsewhere. I guess there is a certain perverse 'integrity' to the neo-pagan espousal of paganism in all its pagan-ness and saying, "...there wasn't any real substance in the churchiness of the church-people, so I will go and make up my own substance."
Yes, yes I know there isn't any substance there and they are really not the ones doing the making up and one cannot 'make up' substance for oneself anyway because all substance comes solely from the Author of substance Who has revealed Himself to all mankind in the person of Jesus the Messiah – but that does not change the fact that the unbearable churchiness of it all has concealed the weight of God's glory from the minds of these who think that they have seen all that Christianity has to offer.
As we have previously stated, when God's People don't do things God's Way, people get hurt. Real people, real hurt, really. That especially includes having 'churches' instead of the Biblical Ekklesia of the Living God, and no it is not just an issue of semantics.
Talking to my neo-pagan friend about Jesus, he did not question the historical reality of a man named Jesus of Nazareth, but he did question the deity and the supremacy of Jesus, and especially any claim that Jesus might have on his own life. He asserted that the writers of the New Testament wrote things to support ideas that were not really the teachings of Jesus but their own ideas that came after Jesus' death as they tried to deal with the tragic disappointment of His execution which put an end to all their hopes. He asked, "If Jesus really was God, and wanted us to know all of this about Himself and had all this insight for us about what He wanted us to do, why didn't he write it all down for us himself? Why was it all written by other men after His death?"
Now that is actually a good question, and also one which I had never heard of or considered until that moment. I felt at first the feeling of being caught flatfooted and wondering how on earth to answer that one, when I suddenly found rising up inside of me from I knew not where, "God is not a man. God does not do things like a man would do. If a man has something to say he picks up a pen and writes a book. Pens are a creation of men so they can write things to one another. But God did not create pens, He created Man. When a man has something to say He picks up a pen. When God has something to say, He picks up a man."
Some time later, I read concerning Messiah in the Book of the Psalms, "My heart is overflowing with a good theme; I recite my composition concerning the King, my tongue is the pen of a ready writer."
God has given His Word, the Bible, to all the world, for all time, to know Him and His Heart and Truth in Jesus. He did this through a handful of men chosen at various times. When God had something to say to us all, He did not pick up a pen, the creation of a men, He picked up His own creation, men, and used them.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Of Bishops, Churches, and the King James Bible
Looks like it's worse than I thought.
Of late I have been reading about the formation of the King James Bible in a book called 'God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible' by Adam Nicolson. I found this listed on the Georgia PINES network library system and had to wait several weeks for them to get it into our local library so I could read it. To be honest I am not 100% certain just what to make of the author. He does not seem to have a high view of scripture, although he does seems to have a very warm and positive view of the Bible's place in history and particularly of the King James Bible's place in English history – a bit perhaps like one who has a very warm and appreciative view of his grandfather, while not necessarily believing that his grandfather's beliefs and decisions are binding on his own life today. He does seem to deal very even-handed with the Puritans, and the Anglicans who persecuted them, alternatively showing the failings and virtues of each in turn without any strong sense that either was right. Certainly Nicolson approaches the subject from a secular perspective. 'Caveat Emptor'.
Notwithstanding the previous notes, two things are very clear. One is that James and the entire Jacobean power structure – including the 'Church' of England that James was the 'head' of– was more corrupt and debauched than I had imagined. The other is that the situation concerning the terms 'bishop' and 'church' used in the King James Bible is actually worse than I had supposed.
Previously I have written about the fact the terms 'bishop' and 'church' were very poor choices to translate the Greek 'episkopos' and 'ekklesia', and that no end of mischief has been done by the enemy from those minor and relatively subtle changes. In that posting I pointed out that, "We may live in an age where you can turn on the TV and see 'Bishop' Eddie Long, or 'Bishop' Clarence McClendon (neither of which do I recommend), but the plain, straightforward fact of the matter is that the King James Translators knew first-hand exactly what a real live bishop really was. You can try to fool yourself about the meaning and intent of the inclusion of this word in the King James Translation, but those translators lived in the days of real-life, funny hat wearin', unbiblical, persecuting-the-true-believers Bishops (some of the translators apparently went on to be bishops), and this was precisely what they knew by experience and had in mind and yet purposefully included in the King James Bible. You cannot get around that. They knew what a Bishop was, and that was how they chose to translate the word 'episkopos'."
Turns out that the leadership of the translation 'companies' as they were called actually were real live bishops. In fact, they included real live, persecuting the true church bishops. The very men put appointed by James as the chief men over the translation were debauched Anglican bishops who had themselves sought out, spied upon, arrested, persecuted, tortured, and murdered Puritans, Separatists, and Presbyterians to maintain their positions of power – and who publicly maintained that the blood-stained, half-catholic, ritualistic Anglican Church was in fact identical to the original apostolic body of Christ. Along with these bloody clerics James also appointed some 'moderate' Puritans who did not necessarily deny the propriety of the King of England to be the head of the Church of England or the unbiblical structure of the Anglican Church.
To ensure that the translation process did nothing that might disturb the existing – brutally enforced – power structure (like convey the truth of scripture) James commanded the translators that they were to rely primarily on the 'Bishops Bible' (poorly produced by the Anglican bishops during the reign of Elizabeth to oppose the more accurate Tyndale and Geneva Bibles) and that they were to retain the current 'ecclesiastical words' – which meant that they had to use 'bishop' for 'episkopos' instead of 'elder', and that they had to use 'church' for 'ekklesia' instead of 'assembly' or 'congregation'.
I maintain that 'assembly' and 'congregation', though superior to 'church', are still insufficient to translate 'ekklesia' and that the best route by far is to teach the word 'ekklesia' itself and drop all others. No word in English conveys the meaning of 'ekklesia'.
The continued use of the term 'bishop' among bible-believers is absolutely unconscionable. There is simply no excuse for it. Whatever translation you use, get out your pen and get that foolish word out of your Bible.
While you are at it, strike that 'pastors and teachers' at Ephesians 4:11 and replace it with 'shepherd-teachers'.
Of late I have been reading about the formation of the King James Bible in a book called 'God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible' by Adam Nicolson. I found this listed on the Georgia PINES network library system and had to wait several weeks for them to get it into our local library so I could read it. To be honest I am not 100% certain just what to make of the author. He does not seem to have a high view of scripture, although he does seems to have a very warm and positive view of the Bible's place in history and particularly of the King James Bible's place in English history – a bit perhaps like one who has a very warm and appreciative view of his grandfather, while not necessarily believing that his grandfather's beliefs and decisions are binding on his own life today. He does seem to deal very even-handed with the Puritans, and the Anglicans who persecuted them, alternatively showing the failings and virtues of each in turn without any strong sense that either was right. Certainly Nicolson approaches the subject from a secular perspective. 'Caveat Emptor'.
Notwithstanding the previous notes, two things are very clear. One is that James and the entire Jacobean power structure – including the 'Church' of England that James was the 'head' of– was more corrupt and debauched than I had imagined. The other is that the situation concerning the terms 'bishop' and 'church' used in the King James Bible is actually worse than I had supposed.
Previously I have written about the fact the terms 'bishop' and 'church' were very poor choices to translate the Greek 'episkopos' and 'ekklesia', and that no end of mischief has been done by the enemy from those minor and relatively subtle changes. In that posting I pointed out that, "We may live in an age where you can turn on the TV and see 'Bishop' Eddie Long, or 'Bishop' Clarence McClendon (neither of which do I recommend), but the plain, straightforward fact of the matter is that the King James Translators knew first-hand exactly what a real live bishop really was. You can try to fool yourself about the meaning and intent of the inclusion of this word in the King James Translation, but those translators lived in the days of real-life, funny hat wearin', unbiblical, persecuting-the-true-believers Bishops (some of the translators apparently went on to be bishops), and this was precisely what they knew by experience and had in mind and yet purposefully included in the King James Bible. You cannot get around that. They knew what a Bishop was, and that was how they chose to translate the word 'episkopos'."
Turns out that the leadership of the translation 'companies' as they were called actually were real live bishops. In fact, they included real live, persecuting the true church bishops. The very men put appointed by James as the chief men over the translation were debauched Anglican bishops who had themselves sought out, spied upon, arrested, persecuted, tortured, and murdered Puritans, Separatists, and Presbyterians to maintain their positions of power – and who publicly maintained that the blood-stained, half-catholic, ritualistic Anglican Church was in fact identical to the original apostolic body of Christ. Along with these bloody clerics James also appointed some 'moderate' Puritans who did not necessarily deny the propriety of the King of England to be the head of the Church of England or the unbiblical structure of the Anglican Church.
To ensure that the translation process did nothing that might disturb the existing – brutally enforced – power structure (like convey the truth of scripture) James commanded the translators that they were to rely primarily on the 'Bishops Bible' (poorly produced by the Anglican bishops during the reign of Elizabeth to oppose the more accurate Tyndale and Geneva Bibles) and that they were to retain the current 'ecclesiastical words' – which meant that they had to use 'bishop' for 'episkopos' instead of 'elder', and that they had to use 'church' for 'ekklesia' instead of 'assembly' or 'congregation'.
I maintain that 'assembly' and 'congregation', though superior to 'church', are still insufficient to translate 'ekklesia' and that the best route by far is to teach the word 'ekklesia' itself and drop all others. No word in English conveys the meaning of 'ekklesia'.
The continued use of the term 'bishop' among bible-believers is absolutely unconscionable. There is simply no excuse for it. Whatever translation you use, get out your pen and get that foolish word out of your Bible.
While you are at it, strike that 'pastors and teachers' at Ephesians 4:11 and replace it with 'shepherd-teachers'.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)