About 'Education'

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

Riding the Conveyor Belt

One of our family's favorite TV shows is How it's Made, a Canadian Production similar to the more famous Dirty Jobs. Like Dirty Jobs it shows you the "inside scoop" – in this case of industrial processes – but How it's Made has a straightforward, instructive narrator, not a clever host like Mike Rowe to add witty banter and off-color wise cracks.

One especially memorable episode featured a look into industrial chicken production. Beginning at the point of incubation, it showed untold numbers of eggs all safely stored in rows of rolling incubation cabinets. The cabinets were stainless steel and upright; constantly maintaining temperature and humidity; and inside each cabinet stacks of shelves constantly shifted from side to side rotating the eggs. Normally, of course, this is all done by the mother hen, but industry does not have time to wait for mother hens to get broody. (Curiously, whereas bird eggs must be rotated for the chick to survive to hatching, the leathery eggs of reptiles must not be rotated or the growing reptile embryo will die. Reptile embryos attach to the eggshell after laying and must maintain that orientation until hatching. Keep that in mind if you decide to adopt lizard, turtle, or snake eggs found in the wild.)

The batteries of stainless steel cabinets and automated shelves seemed cold, sterile, and alien to all things cute; and It was, as you might imagine, at the point of hatching that things began to get interesting. Hundreds, even thousands, of baby chicks hatching out all at once, or nearly at once, is truly a compelling and amusing sight. But it was actually what happened next that made this episode so memorable.

After hatching out, the chicks were given, as I recall, a short time to get more or less dry and fluffy. Then, to the wonder of all, the thousands of dry and fluffy personifications of cuteness itself were dumped–and I do mean dumped–completely unceremoniously onto a conveyor belt. And then things began to get downright memorable. In their ride down this conveyor belt, workers stand at various stations grabbing chicks and sorting them according to various criteria. Chicks are stretched, poked, and dropped. Chicks are tossed (tossed!) into chutes on the sides, and all down the line chicks are landing on their heads and rear-ends and everything in between.

Now we ain't vegans or tree-huggers; our family has always eaten meat, and we have long refused to show Bambi in our house simply because we don't want to introduce that kind of foolish (and Godless) sentimentality about animals to our children. But we were all just short of thunderstruck, sitting every one with our mouths agape at this. I was astonished that you could even treat baby chicks like that. I would have thought that half of them would have died.

For several minutes none of us really knew quite what to say.

Upon reflection, I realized that chicks were obviously tougher than I had given them credit for. And if you are running an industrial chicken producing business, I'm sure you have to get them sorted out ASAP and you can't take time to consider the feelings of individual chickies – or even your own feelings for that matter. 'Cause right after these there's another thousand chickies rolling down the line just like 'em. So I guess the workers just have to get used to it and not care, or maybe they have to be the sort of people that don't care to begin with.

Just the same, I couldn't help but think, and remark to my wife and kids, that seeing that footage was one more reason in my mind to think seriously about raising our own chickens for eating. At least we would know that they had been given a more "chicken like" life than that. Clearly you can treat chicks like that, because these folks are doing it. But should you? After all, The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel, but the righteous considers even his animal.

Now chickens are just chickens. Today they are alive, and tomorrow they are thrown into the frying pan, and that's the end of that. Cute they might be, and pretty as a grown chicken, maybe; but even if you spare it to live a long and full life in an air-conditioned coop with veterinarian's care, it will still die quite soon enough, and that will still be the end of that, without even a good meal to show for it. Not so with, say, children. They too will die – all too soon I am afraid – but that is not the end of that. Unlike the chicken they will go on forever. For good or for ill they will have an eternal legacy; an eternal existence.

Question: Is it acceptable to put children on a big conveyor belt?
 

Well that is precisely what we are doing. Every year, millions of children are dropped unceremoniously onto a great conveyor belt in a strange, cold, and alien environment. Along the way dispassionate industrial workers sort through the children and toss them carelessly into various chutes, where they land on their heads and rear-ends and everything in between. If you hadn't seen it for yourself you wouldn't know that you could treat children like that. But a whole new load of kids will be sailing down the belt any minute and there isn't time to care about the feelings of one individual child – or even the worker's own feelings for that matter. The conveyor belt of which I speak is called School. And it really doesn't matter if it's Public School, Private School, or even – here's the real shocker – Christian School. They're all strange, cold, alien, industrial conveyor belts cranking out the children with no time to spare.

Recently my wife and I drove past the nearest school in our county. There was a continuous line of waiting cars that ran from the front door, across the parking lot, down the driveway, down the access road, and backed up a considerable distance on the main road. I don't know how many cars there were, but there were a lot. A whole lot. And I expect that every one of those parents in those cars was proud that they were driving their child to school themselves, because I was when we did it. I prided myself on the idea that, if our daughter had to be in school, at least we cared enough to drive her there ourselves instead of putting her on the bus. I even changed my work schedule to be able to do it.

Now isn't that nice?

Well, let's examine that idea: We cared enough about our daughter that we took the time and effort to reschedule my work, drive her our own selves, and with our own hands we opened the doors, and we handed her over to....complete strangers who did not give a fig about our daughter or any of her thoughts, feelings, wishes, or desires – or ours either I can tell you. Just like the workers in any factory, they were there for the paycheck, they needed the money, and they'd have been anywhere else if they could figure out a way to do that and pay the mortgage too. Any institution has to concern itself primarily with keeping the conveyor belts running as efficiently as possible, and can't allow individual chickies to get in the way.

Besides, kids are pretty flexible aren't they? We all know by experience that most of them can be run through the Schools and not be too damaged... But is that really the level of care and consideration you want for your own kids? I can tell you it is certainly not the level of care and consideration that God wants for your kids. How do I know that? Well let's start with the basics: who did He entrust them to? Schools? No, He entrusted them to you. Do you really think He couldn't have done otherwise if that's what He had wanted? Do you really think God was sitting around nibbling His celestial fingernails century after century until some genius finally got the notion to take children away from their parents and put them in a school?
    

Question: Where is the best place for little chickies?
 

Do you accept the "Adam and Steve" argument? You know, "..God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve'? The underpinnings of this trite argument against homosexuality is to point back to God's Original Creation Order: If that was the way it was created at the beginning, then that was God's intended best purpose. This is the same argument that Jesus uses when He speaks against divorce. Pointing to the original creation order, He says, "God made them one. So man has no business pulling them apart." Well then, who did God give the first children to? Not to schools (which He could have if He had wished), but to the parents. And no man has any business pulling them apart.

When the doctor at our pediatrician's office learned that we teach our own at home, he said, "...but that is definitely a calling; it isn't for everyone." I didn't have time to debate the doctor that day, but I profoundly disagree with that thinking. Teaching your own children at home is not a special calling for special people. If you have children, God has called you to teach them. The pitter patter of little feet is the calling. When God blesses you with children He is calling you to teach them, to raise them, not to give them over to be raised by someone else – or more likely by anyone else.

To take a slightly different tack: If you have children, God's perfect will for you is definitely to raise your children at home and educate them yourself – primarily in the things of God, but also in the "Three R's." God's acceptable will for you might be to entrust them to someone else to teach them if you are unwilling or find yourself incapable, and if the someone else is trustworthy, willing and capable of teaching them with an eye towards godliness first. To entrust your children to an institution of any kind – where you have little or no knowledge or input into who is teaching them, or what they are teaching them – is outside the will of God, even if it's a Christian school. Even if it's the overwhelming social norm. Even if it's required of you by ungodly compulsory education laws. Even if none of your friends and family understand what in the world you are doing.

Easy? No. That is why the Word says, "Be not conformed to this world..."

Butterfly: Christians and the Law

Is a butterfly anti-caterpillar?

From the dawn of Christianity the Bible handles over and over how to understand the relationship of the Christian to the Law. Most of Romans, all of Galations, Acts chapter 15, and elsewhere, the New Testament writers are dedicated to explaining this issue. Yet, we still have many Christians to this day that are confused about it, and supposed teachers of the Law "..who understand neither what they say nor the things which they affirm" (1Tim 1:7) – like the unfortunately popular Joel Osteen explaining to us that we should not eat pork or shrimp because "...the Bible says." What incredible Biblical ignorance! I think of a brother and sister who (repeatedly) determined to eat no more shrimp believing that it displeased God, a whole denomination dedicated to the idea that we gentiles still have to observe the sabbath to have any hope, a brother who already wouldn't eat pork and who recently took to wearing a yamulke which is clearly contrary to 1 Cor 11, and a brother who took to dressing like an orthodox Jew and rocking back and forth in prayer like Jews at the Wailing Wall.

There is nothing in the world wrong with a caterpillar. God Himself created caterpillars. Caterpillars are striking, even beautiful creatures. Some of them are even powerful, which you will find out about firsthand if you pick up the wrong one. But a caterpillar is not a butterfly.

Butterflies are universally acknowledged as among God's most beautiful creatures. They are delicate and shimmering and colorful, and yet, some can fly distances of thousands of miles. A butterfly is a wonderful thing. The butterfly has been transformed beyond the caterpillar, it has ascended high above the caterpillar. The butterfly does not do the things of the caterpillar, but a butterfly is not anti-caterpillar by any means.

The practices and traditions of caterpillars are good and wholesome and given by God. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the practices of the caterpillar. On the contrary, the things of the caterpillar are life to the caterpillar and soundness to his body, and by them the caterpillar shall live! Indeed, the butterflyiness of the butterfly rests upon the caterpillar.

But, the butterfly who tries to live by the things of the caterpillar shall die! The things of the caterpillar are left behind at the cocoon. The chewing of leaves, the climbing of trees, and the spinning of silk has no place in the life of the butterfly – and the butterfly who, having been transformed, goes back to the elementary principles of the caterpillar has fallen from the marvelous grace shown it at its transformation. Those things are good and proper to the caterpillar...but not to the butterfly.

The man under the Law is the caterpillar. But when Christ came, He put an end to the caterpillar things. When any man is renewed by the Spirit to faith in Christ he is transformed from the old caterpillar into a new butterfly. By the power of God in Christ he has ascended beyond caterpillars. He is not therefore to concern himself any longer with the things of caterpillars, but with the things of butterflies.

(As an aside, those who are under what we call Judaism have nothing for us at all. To the contrary, they, though descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, need to be instructed by us, the gentiles. It is in no way profitable to us to spend time learning, much less observing, traditions of Judaism which are not even from the Law, from God, but are traditions of men arising from 2000 years of rejecting Messiah. We don't need to learn those foolish and unbiblical things from them, they need to learn the things of God in the Bible from us. Abstaining from foods, observance of Chanukah, and wearing of yamulkes and talits is not going to bring you one inch closer to God – and stands a good chance of doing real damage.)

Brothers and sisters in Christ: We are, in Christ, through no virtue of our own, transformed into butterflies. Don't be turned aside to the chewings of leaves and climbings of trees.

O Hand! I have no need of Thee!

This poem is dedicated to a brother in Christ, whose sincerity as a brother I do not doubt, but who carries about in the Body of Christ that affliction of mind which teaches that if God had anything to say to 'The Pastor'  He would say it to him directly, and never through any member of the 'congregation'.

O Hand! I have no need of thee!
For being Eye do plainly see;
And know all things that come to light,
Whilst thou art lacking still of sight.
And like that low and humble Toe,
Which plodding through the mire dost go,
Thou art not elevated high,
With lofty visions as am Eye,
To see all things that are revealed;
These things from you are darkly sealed.
For how could you, by Fingers, know,
Instructing Feet which way to go?
Or looking up to brilliant sun,
Couldst say to Legs, "Tis time to run?"
Though deft, tis true, your Fingers be,
Yet not one color can they see;
And yet a rainbow of them fill
The vistas streaming past each hill;
While thou, poor sightless Hand, are dark,
To sun or moon or distant star.
These things from you are wisely veiled,
Nor pitch from blinding light can tell;
But pressed, perhaps, into the dirt,
Or grasping parts with sudden hurts,
You cannot see as Eye might do,
The red sunrise or morning dew.
Oh why wouldst thou expect to speak,
To Eye of what you'll never see?
What hope you harbor to inform,
Whose calluses are roughly worn?
With all that wondrous Eye can see,
Oh Hand! I have no need of thee!

Bible Correcting: Bishops and Churches I

Recently I came across an article by Cooper Abrams III asserting that the word 'ekklesia' ought not to have been translated 'church', but as 'assembly' or 'congregation'. My contention is that both 'assembly' and 'congregation' – though better than 'church' – are still poor choices to translate 'ekklesia' and that it would be easier to teach and spread 'ekklesia' itself than to infuse these other words with the ekklesia concept. After that I encountered a counter article by Will Kinney criticizing Abrams' assertions, defending the use of the words 'church' (as opposed to 'assembly' or 'congregation') and 'bishop' (as opposed to 'overseer') and making the case that the King James is right in all it says and does.

According to Kinney's article I guess I am a 'Bible Corrector'.

Just for the record I think the King James translators did a fine job and produced a good solid translation, but that is all they did. I in no way believe that the King James is The translation for all English speaking peoples, and further assert that those who carry this philosophy so far as to say that you must have the KJV to be saved are in grave error, to the point of heresy. (Not that either of these two men assert that to my knowledge.) A translation of the Word of God is not of itself the Word of God, but a translation of it. It is a work of men, though a good one, and subject to correction and better understanding. On the high side, these men were barely out of the Reformation and still had a very medieval/Catholic frame of reference regarding the Scriptures. On the low side, these men were appointed by James to perform this work primarily for political reasons, and were specifically restricted by James to established ecclesiastical terminology so as not to rock the completely unbiblical Church of England boat.

I understand why the idea of 'correcting' the Bible would make some sincere believers queasy, especially 'King James Only' believers. To this I simply say that I am not correcting The Bible, I am correcting Translations of the Bible. There is a difference, and it is an important difference. I fully believe that the Bible is our complete and inerrant guide to all matters of living, belief, and practice; individually and corporately. It was given by the Holy Spirit, and is not open to input or feedback from mere humans. Translations of the Bible are not so. They are translated by human beings and we need to take that into consideration when we read them and when we form and teach doctrine or practice from them.


Bishop

I'd like to start with the word 'bishop' simply because that is the easier case to make. Let me begin with what is really a minor point: Kinney going to have a hard time convincing people that 'bishopric' is "...not at all archaic" while using such a phrase as, "I trow not."

The word 'bishop' is a relic from a dark and bygone age when both the scriptures and the truths of scripture were brutally suppressed.

It is interesting and encouraging to me that Kinney correctly recognizes that 'elders', 'shepherds', and 'overseers' are all synonyms for the same biblical office, and that there are to be a plurality of them in each ekklesia – as opposed to a singular clergyman, i.e. 'The Pastor'. Since in Eph 4:11 Paul links the terms Shepherd-Teacher I further assert that many if not most of the references in the NT to 'teachers' are also using this term as a fourth synonym. Thus, in 1 Tim 2:12 (NKJV) "..and I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man..." Paul is in fact referring to elders, since elders are 'those who teach and exercise authority', and he then continues this line of thought in 3:1: i.e., "I do not permit a woman to be an elder ... however if a man desires the office of an overseer, he desires a good work." So we are in agreement on this point.

There are, however, real problems with the idea of using 'bishop' as a synonym for elder, particularly as the King James Translators did not intend it in this way.

• I agree that most translations have followed the lead of earlier translations by rendering 'episkopos' as 'bishop'. Prudence indeed dictates that we should take note of this fact and take care in our consideration of how to understand this subject. But the number of translations on this 'side' does not make it correct. Truth is not a popularity contest.

• From a strictly linguistic standpoint, 'overseer' is the preferable way to translate 'episkopos'. Kinney states, "...'bishop' is the more literal word [than 'overseer'] coming from the Greek New Testament and it means to watch over another." This is incorrect. 'Bishop' is not a translation of 'episkopos' at all, it is a transliteration, which is a very different thing. Clearly, 'overseer' is as literal a translation as you could possibly have for the word 'epi-skopos', and is much more informative to the reader than 'bishop'. The only reason to prefer 'bishop' in translation would be from some potential cultural or social consideration that outweighed mere translation.

• From a cultural/social standpoint, everything about the word 'bishop' mitigates against its usage in translation of the NT. The plain fact of the matter is that everybody knows that a 'bishop' is a high-falutin' guy with a funny hat like the Impressive Clergyman in The Princess Bride. This statement has a comical edge to be sure, and may seem as though I am merely in jest or making light of the question, but actually I am dead serious. 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'.

• The usage of the term 'bishop' keeps the waters really muddy about true ekklesia life and government. It is hard to get the majority of Christians to remotely conceive of the idea that there is not supposed to be a 'The Pastor' at their 'church' – or even to conceive of why they should take the time to try to conceive of it. And when their Bible throws in inaccurate, dated, socially charged terms like 'bishop' for 'overseer', or 'Pastor' in Eph 4:11 when it should have said 'shepherd', you have to work all that much harder to get them to see through that churchy mindset. These harmful and unbiblical constructs have been at the center of the 'church' frame of reference for so long that it is quite difficult to get someone to seriously consider the idea that all of what they have known about 'churches' and Christianity all their lives is somehow in error and actually unbiblical. They think of these things as being specifically Biblical, because, after all, their Bible says 'Pastor', and it says 'Bishop'. There it is in black and white right before them.

I am not in agreement with everything that Cooper Abrams said in his article, but I am completely in agreement with his point that, "We can be sympathetic to their situation; but the fact remains that the King James Bible translators and the translators in modern times have had the opportunity to correct this error, yet they failed to do so and contributed to muddying the waters and sadly have upheld a misconception of what a biblical New Testament church should be as the Lord Jesus Christ instituted it." How ironic that Kinney should say that it is we who are trying to clarify these points that are muddying the waters!

It makes a difference! Even though I know and am fully settled in my mind that there is no 'The Pastor' Biblically, I tell you it was a hard won settlement and knowledge, as our house sought out answers to questions while we knew of no place to turn for answers but to the Word itself, and, when we found the answers, found them shrouded in misleading language. It makes a real difference if your Bible says, "..gave some to be pastors and teachers..' instead of 'shepherds and teachers', or better yet, 'shepherd-teachers'. To get over this translational hurdle it is crucial to know that the word behind 'pastors' is actually 'poimen' which is not 'pastor' but 'shepherd', was rendered in all other instances as 'shepherd', and was rendered 'pastor' only here – and without any linguistic justification at all. But it is not enough merely to know about it so that you can do mental gymnastics on the fly as you read, and the kicker is that there is no signpost in your Bible to alert readers to this fact. There is nothing to say, "Pay attention to this particular spot because there is an important issue lurking behind the language!" Without that signpost it can take a long time to stumble across the truth – if you stumble across it at all – as the condition of the 'church' plainly shows.

It should have been translated that way from the beginning. Since it hasn't, it needs to be 'corrected' now. It should have been corrected already.

The whole, entire purpose of a translation is so that people will be able to read and absorb the truths of scripture in their own language! Because it is a barrier to personal growth in Christ for the scriptures to be available only in Greek and Hebrew, men began to translate these truths into the native tongues, and many died for so doing but thought the price worth paying. However, if the translation is done in such a way that the translation itself remains a barrier to understanding, while seeming to have removed the barriers, then most of our brothers and sisters in Christ will never jump over them at all! They will be to them not a hurdle to jump over, but a rope to merely cordon them off and keep them moving in a limited and skewed direction, as it is in fact to this day. We have generations and continents filled with men and women who have named the name of Christ, but have walked in the darkness of churchy, clerical ignorance – working churchy, clerical works – all the while fully believing that this darkness is the light intended in the Bible.

The translators of the various translations have had every opportunity to clear this situation up, yet have refused to do so.

Uncle Tom's Carbine

As a rule I take a rather dim view of fictional literature. I wouldn't go so far as to say that reading fiction is inherently sinful or anything (that, for instance, would be a legitimate example of legalism) but just that it is usually a waste of time at best. I myself once was a prodigious reader of fiction – reading Prof. Tolkien's Hobbit and Lord of the Rings at least once a year – and many other fictional books besides. Sometime around age 21 or 22 (about eight years before God came) I realized that a person only has just so much time on the earth, and just so many waking hours, and all the time I was devoting to reading fiction I could be actually learning something.

Unfortunately, most works of fiction – being the imaginations of sinful humans – don't really make it too far up the 'at best' scale.

Which brings us to my second objection to fiction: It is all too easy for the author to work everything out in his itty bitty imaginary world to suit his own fleshly desires without having to deal with the truths of reality. Characters can make all sorts of godless, immoral, unwise decisions and have everything just 'work out'. It's like having an imaginary argument with someone in which you trounce their every point, show them the speciousness of their position, and win the argument hands down. You make your point and leave them speechless: Huzzah! Unfortunately, when you go to argue with the actual person reality comes into play and they turn out not to be an easily manipulated figment, but a real person; they say things – and may do things – you hadn't counted on.

It just doesn't turn out quite like you had imagined.

Well that is unpleasant enough (speaking from experience), but if the person in question turns out to be, say, the All-powerful Creator of Heaven and Earth whom you have snubbed all your life, telling yourself and everyone who asks that you'll be OK and you don't really need to commit your life to His Son, and who is now infinitely offended by your willful rejection of the only possible solution for your filthy sins, which you are smeared and stained and reeking with, and realize shaking uncontrollably before His thundering blazing wrath that lays every single fact about your life absolutely naked – like that dream where you showed up for school in your underwear, only 10,000 times 10,000 times worse – that your shuckin' and jivin' just ain't gonna get it, and the jaws of Hell are now opening underneath you...

Well that is the reality of which I said that writers of fiction so easily ignore it.

One exception I have made is the reading of Uncle Tom's Cabin.

A copy of that book surfaced in our home and the kids asked permission to read it. I generally discourage the children from fiction for all the reasons above – without regard to anybody's list of so-called "classics" – but in the case of this request I gave it greater consideration specifically because I knew that Uncle Tom's Cabin was a fictional work that had an actual, real, and notable impact on history. That puts it in a rather different category. So I agreed to read it first and then let the kids, if I found no real objectionable material.

Going into the book, here is what I knew about it.
• It was written by Harriet Beecher Stowe as a work of anti-slavery propaganda, which she herself considered to have been given to her from God; that it enjoyed great popularity, and directly contributed to the coming of the American Civil War.
• When President Lincoln later met Stowe he said, "So you're the little lady who started this big war."
• Conservative blacks – such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – are often ridiculed by not so conservative blacks as 'Uncle Toms'.

I never had any particular desire to read Uncle Tom's Cabin. To me, it was just that little book written by that little woman, and I really never thought too much about it. Strangely, although we were taught in the public schools that it played an important role in the events leading up to the Civil War, it was not among the list of 'classics' that we were required to read. I certainly never saw anyone reading it in school.

Having now read it, I know why.

If you have never read Uncle Tom's Cabin, you need to.
Not one day, but today. I was completely – completely – unprepared for how moving and how powerful the book actually is. More importantly, I was completely unprepared for how unabashedly evangelical the book is: both in the sense of coming from an 'evangelical protestant' perspective, and also as being written with evangelism closely tied into the purposes of the book.

The most difficult thing about reading it is Stowe's literary impersonation of the various dialects involved in the story. This was supposedly the first major work ever to attempt such a thing, and it is at first a bit hard to understand. I wasn't sure at first if I was supposed to be attaching a British or Upper-crust Southern, or Southern White-Trash accent to it or what. Take it in stride and you will get used to it.

The other thing I didn't expect was the portrayal of Uncle Tom as a Christ-figure. Laying down his life in his service to Jesus, he definitely shares in His sufferings and 'fills up in his body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ', as Paul said. It is difficult to comment on that sufficiently without giving the story away. It should be obvious though just how offensive such a portrayal would have been to white southerners in those days, who had by then adopted the evil and unbiblical philosophy that blacks were much less than whites, even less than human. To then portray a black slave as a direct reflection of Jesus – whom they (supposedly) worshiped as deity – what an affront that would have been!

The thing that really got me though, that really puzzled me, was the wide gulf between the impression I had previously acquired about Uncle Tom, and the reality of the character.

For years I had heard blacks disparaging politically conservative blacks as 'Uncle Toms': i.e., "...you' a ol' Uncle Tom handkerchief-head!" The impression I had from years of hearing Uncle Tom referred to by both blacks and whites was one of spineless debasement, of mean and weaselly self-subjugation, of cravenly fawning over the white man and playing up to him like a dog whimpering and licking at his master's feet hoping that just a bone might be thrown to him – the very opposite of anything approaching manhood and dignity. Some sort of black-minstrel-play character shuckin' and grinnin' and playin' it up for de massa.

Not only was my impression wrong, but it was so wrong it left me confounded. I wondered how on earth anyone could possibly look at Uncle Tom that way, could possibly see in 'Uncle Tom' an insult? How could anyone remotely portray him in such a light? The actual Uncle Tom character, though perhaps intellectually stunted, was a physical and spiritual giant; a man, who, solely because of conscience toward God (1 Peter 2:19) endures undue hardship and unjust suffering. A man who, reviled, does not revile in return, but forthrightly gives the best that he has to give, as genuinely unto God. A man who takes the lonely path of Christ and looks to Him in everything he goes through, who could at many moments have struck down his captors, but prays for them instead, and yet does not shrink back from telling his masters plainly of their need for Christ and the hopelessness of their sinful condition. A man who, though betrayed, bereft, and beaten, keeps his eyes firmly fixed on eternal reality with manly determination and incredible inner strength. A man who, whether presented with white villainy or black victimism tells all about their need for Christ and exhorts all to turns from their sins and put their trust in the Cross. A whole and complete man who recognizes that a white sister-in-Christ is more his family than any black sinner. A man's man who, in true hero fashion, in steadfastness of mind, slowly gets the 'better' of his opponents in life when they come to find that he truly is their better, or are struck by God for their bitter impenitence.

Who on earth could possibly despise the Uncle Tom of Uncle Tom's Cabin?

This question had me really baffled until I realized that all the things that made Uncle Tom the hero, all the things which he had gotten from a lifetime of serving the King of Kings, all the things which were the very strengths and all our hope in Jesus, are precisely the very things that make Jesus the 'stumbling stone and the rock of offense' that was laid in Zion. The worldliness and the fleshliness of man does not want a hero that suffers with strength, and in patience lays it all before God. The natural man does not want a Messiah that allows Himself to be beaten and torn to expose our own sinfulness and our own need for redemption when with one word He could have blasted his tormentors into sub-atomic particles. The heart of man does not want a redeemer who would allow Himself to be nailed to a cross when He could be raising armies to ride in glorious battle against the unjust Roman occupiers.

The heart of man does not want an Uncle Tom's Cabin; it wants Uncle Tom's Carbine. It wants to see Uncle Tom in armed revolt, takin' one in the shoulder, but gritting his teeth and mowin' 'em down in the process. It wants to see him leading a band a grim-faced hardened stoics gettin' back at their oppressor and not caring about whether their enemy winds up in hell. We don't want a hero who looks past his own suffering to see the eternal destiny of his tormentors. We want a hero who blows 'em to hell without misgiving, gets the girl, and rides off to forge his own destiny in true movie fashion.

Coming this summer to a theater near you: Uncle Tom's Carbine!

Well... I do have some good news for those of you who can't wait to see justice meted out: In God's plan, you actually get both movies. In God's plan, in the first show, you get the safe and snuggly baby in a manger. Then, after the interlude and a chance to go to the bathroom and get you a Coke®, comes the next feature: Messiah Triumphant! Riding at the head of the Armies of Heaven He treads out the winepress of His wrath and stains all His clothes crimson with the blood that is spilled in vengeance around the world. More perilous than anything your eyes will ever behold, the Prince of Life also becomes the avenger of all injustice and unrighteousness in a way that makes a Molly Hatchet album cover look like school-girls playing cats-cradle. The Violence and Gore are so out of hand that they have to invent not just a new movie rating, but a whole new rating system, just to begin to convey the truth of the situation.

The Suffering Servant of Psalm 22 becomes the Glorious Son of David in Psalm 110, and "fills the places with dead bodies."
 
Umm, however... you might want to take a good look at the book of Malachi first, starting in chapter 2 and verse17. " 'Behold, He is coming,' say the LORD of Hosts, 'But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears?' " Do you think you can? "He will be like a refiner's fire.." He will completely melt down and burn up everything and everyone who comes before Him, including you! It's what we've always longed for, God says, but it's not going to be like you think because your sins have to be included in it too!

Uh-Oh!

This is why we have an Uncle Tom Messiah first. Uncle Tom's Carbine is still in production and will be along directly.

Meanwhile, you'd better get in line for tickets now, before they close the ticket-booth.

Heritage of Hate

If you have been in the South for any length of time you have undoubtedly seen the Confederate Flag bumper sticker reading, "Heritage Not Hate." One comes to expect such sights – particularly in the deep south – and not unusually it turns out that the collar of the persons driving vehicles so adorned tends to be a bit ruddier than average. But I may say that I have not yet come to expect one of these "Heritage Not Hate" stickers in the company of a "Real Men Love Jesus" decal. My sons and I were met with such a sight quite recently.

This may seem unremarkable to many throughout the South – where 'Southern Pride' and 'church'-going are both traditional – but it did seem remarkable to us because the two messages are so incongruous.

In what sense are these two slogans incongruous?

People, when you see that rebel flag on those "Heritage Not Hate" bumper stickers, the heritage in question is hate.

Sorry, I know that can be a shock to many of the persons reading this from below the Mason-Dixon line, but that rebel-flag heritage is hate. That's what it's all about.

As a son of the South I know whereof I speak. I was raised in a family that took its 'southern-ness' seriously. I remember once seeing an old black-and-white movie set in the reconstruction period. In one scene the heroine of the movie stated, "I was 10 years old before I found out that 'damn' and 'yankee' were two different words." That was pretty much what our family was like. No one would have said, "damn" in our house, but the intention was just the same. Imagine my surprise when I made friends with a new kid in high school from New York and found out that he was not rude and incredibly stupid!

I grew up loving that hateful battle flag and actually believing that the South didn't fight the war over slavery. I hate to have to tell you this, but slavery was the whole point of the Civil War from two generations before secession even happened. The South and the rest of the colonies knew that slavery was wrong from before the Revolution. But the more time went on, the more she dragged her heels, and then the more she dug in her heels. In response to God stirring the national conscience against American Slavery, the South developed a philosophy espousing the 'rightness' of their wrong. They twisted and perverted the truths of the Bible to justify their hatred and evil domination. As the truth marched on, the 'churches' of the South broke ties with their brothers in the North rather than release their grip on the slaves (which is where the Southern Baptist Convention came from for one), and dug their heels in and refused to listen to God, the Bible, men, or Conscience.

(Not all of the South was like-minded though; throughout the mountains opinions tended strongly against secession and slavery, which is why a small mountain county in North Georgia changed its name to Union County in protest against secession, just as the western counties of Virginia seceded from secessionist Virginia to rejoin the Union as West Virginia, and why slaveholding Kentucky refused to secede and fought with the Union.)

God patiently gave the South every reasonable and beyond reasonable opportunity to do the right thing and remove that great evil from her midst, until their was no way possible and all chances were at an end. Jefferson himself said, "I tremble for my country, knowing that God is a just God, and that His Justice cannot sleep forever." And when God's justice could sleep no longer He blasted the South to pieces with such utter destruction that slavery would never again be considered, until the blood of all the brutalized and murdered slaves had been exacted against the perpetrators of the crime, and they were humbled in deep misery and humiliation and bitterness of soul.

Never again would a human slave be owned in the South, or in America – but instead of repentance toward God and the peaceful fruit of righteousness, she turned again to bitter hatred and oppression of our black brothers and sisters and did all she could to hate them within and without legal power. Instead of humbling ourselves before God and repenting for our sins and the sins of our fathers, we dug in our heels and determined to hate them as far as we possibly still could be allowed.

That tom-fool flag is the very symbol of that hatred, that rebellion against God, that refusal to humble ourselves before God and the world and to repent of our wickedness. With hatred in our hearts we set our faces against all godliness and the southern states again flew the Confederate Flag in defiance of God and of all decent men everywhere who saw the injustice of the segregationist South, and with the fires of hell in our eyes we dared anyone to come and take our hatred out from between our clenched teeth.

Men and women of God throughout the South, all who name the name of Christ, we have great need still of repentance toward God for the evils of our heritage! Our heritage concerning that wicked rebel flag is not a heritage to be proud of and hold on to, it is a Heritage of Hate.