Pastor Mike's Corner

David relied on God’s protection and God’s, I might add, God’s providence. Saul said put my stuff on. By the way, by putting someone else’s gear one identified you with that person. “Put my stuff on David! Show Israel where you got what you got…if you win." David said, "it doesn’t fit." The only one who’s going to get the glory is God. David knew the giant was an abomination in God’s eyes, he knew it had to die, his obedience to God demanded that he killed it, and he attacked it with full confidence, and like the bear and the lion, he knew that God would give him this victory.

That’s faith. That’s the secret to unleashing the power of God in you. The book of Romans tells us that we are to use our spiritual gifts, that is the power of God in us, in proportion to our faith in him. You attack a problem worried, the opposite of faith, you’re not pleasing God (Heb. 11:6), and—you attack it without the Spirit. You attack it with full confidence in God—get back.

What happens when you refuse to walk in the ways of man? What happens when you apply the principles that David applied? Does you giant die? As you know, in this case, the giant falls. Eventually, all of them will. But I think that is irrelevant. You see, acting on faith means that you do what He demands regardless of the outcome.

It means saying that I don’t care if you throw me into the furnace, God will save me, O king; but even if he doesn’t, O king, know this: I will never bow down to a pathetic giant that is evil in God’s eyes. You got a giant in your midst that is evil in God’s eyes? Debt? Porno? Drugs? Hatred? As long as it lives, you’re a slave!

....Step back: David was going to be a king. But he started out serving our God as a shepherd. That speaks to his humility. The lowliest job in the land was the shepherd. What made David great as a king was that he was first faithful as a shepherd. Are you humble? I went to the bank yesterday and deposited my check from the cemetery that I do a little work for. The lady asked, “Are you a gravedigger?” I said, “No…I’m a pastor.” She said, “Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to offend you.”

Offend me? Am I better then a gravedigger? I was a gravedigger. I studied just as hard as a gravedigger then I do today. I witnessed just as much as a gravedigger then I do today. I ministered just as much as a gravedigger then I do today. I’m a pastor today because I was a gravedigger yesterday. If God calls me to be a gravedigger tomorrow, then I will serve Him as a gravedigger…regardless of what people think. We have to be willing to serve wherever he calls us.

I believe that if you wont serve Him in the mud, you cant serve Him on some man made perch. One thing I love about the military is that, for the most part, those that lead started out in the mud. That’s where you learn, grow, and develop. God uses the same training ground.

Think of David as the shepherd: Out there in the wilderness, in the rain, in solitude, obscurity, wind beating down on him, sun baking him, no one but him and some sheep. Talk about monotonous work. Sound’s boring doesn’t it? Not always.
David said, "….When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it.

That’s amazing and let me tell you why: If David came back to his master and he was missing one sheep, no one would fault him from loosing one to a lion or a bear. Even if they did, David could’ve lied. Sheep died of natural causes. Could’ve justified that lie. Sheep died of natural causes is partially true: Lion ate the sheep, sheep died, naturally. So why in the world would David risk his life to save a sheep?

Simple, cause David was responsible for them. The sheep and his promise mattered to him. He does what is right, what ought to be done, even if no one is looking. We have a word for that: Integrity. And that is what was at the core of David.

Psalm 78 continues, “From the care of the ewes with suckling lambs He brought him, To Shepherd Jacob His people, And Israel His inheritance. So he shepherded them according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them with his skilful hands.”

Before David was a king he had a spiritual heart, a servant’s heart, and a integrity in his heart. You don’t start with that…success is garbage; failure will ravish you, and you, like Saul, will fall. On the flip side, regardless of where your at now, you focus on developing a moldable heart, in solitude, the mud, monotony, obscurity, God will develop you for the battle tomorrow.
David learned to fight giants in the public because he fought bears when he was alone and it didn’t matter. And that, my brothers and sisters, is where we will start next week..

John Lennon challenged us many years back when he wrote:

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Let’s do that. Let’s imagine a Godless society where we can all live in peace and harmony.  The benefits are astronomical.  See, not only is there division amongst the different religions, there is also a moral law that impedes us...and yes, makes us unhappy.  If we could get rid of restrictions, we could increase our happiness.  I'm not suggesting that we get rid of morality, just that we change what we have morality for. 

Given the atheistic worldview, I believe we must conclude that morality is only used in such a way that brings about the most happiness now. I say now for one reason:  If there is no heaven above us, there is no "tomorrow" (after death), the now is all that's important.  Morality is what makes me happy now!  For example, don’t hurt me, take my money, or rape me because that behavior will make me unhappy. Or...let a person do the things that make them happy as long as that behavior doesn’t hurt others. Recognize this?  It is the new morality that is merging today. This is the new “moral law” that has come about because of the false a-priori that there is no God. And ultimately, this is a self destructive.

John Lennon asks for everyone to "join us..."  Why?  Because an atheist is only going to be completely happy in a world that overwhelmingly holds to this view. A world ruled by a religious majority will force the atheist to act in a way that does not make the atheist happy. That is, the majority will force their morality on the minority. The atheist must work to bring about a world that accepts the atheistic world view (and they are doing just that). Free living without religions fighting! Long live J. Lennon.

However, if the majority accepts the atheistic religion as fact, then the atheist can no longer appeal to a moral law based on happiness. Let’s face it, there are many people in this world who hurt, steal, rape, become dictators, or kill because that behavior brings them happiness--and yes, outside of religion too. To argue that their actions are wrong because it impedes another’s happiness falls short. I would simply argue that my happiness is more important then yours and your reasoning is only an attempt to deny me what I want. Is this not what we see now? Abortion is denying a person’s happiness (life) because it impedes on the happiness of the other. In that case, the more powerful acts in a way to ensure there own happiness. Might makes right.

One might argue that morality should then be based on what brings the most happiness to the most amount of people. Again, why? Why should my happiness be denied because of the masses? You cant appeal to anything. Furthermore, evolutionary ethics, which is the creation story of atheism, backs up this idea of the individual or the few surviving at the cost of the masses. Altruistic behavior maintains a species…it does not allow for “improvement.”

Stalin and Hitler, then, created the best example of what an atheistic society ought to look like. So…imagine there’s no heaven…it’s easy if you try. No hell below us. Above us only sky. Imagine all the people, living for today.

An atheistic society is self destructive. Far from the utopia that J. L dreamed of.

As many of you know, Mrs. Clinton stated that she was under sniper fire when she landed in Bosnia. The media, however, found a video that told a completely different truth: There was a welcoming party and there was no fire.

Here is what I find so absolutely tasteless about Hillary’s comments:

First (and this is from one who served in a combat zone) it is a slap in the face of every military person who has ever served. Our military men and women would bend over backwards and take a bullet to the head to keep the First Lady from harm. To suggest that the military would drop off the First Lady in a combat zone shows a lack of respect for what are brave troops would even do for her.

Second, after making the comment she even goes so far to say that it was a slip of the tongue that came about because she is sleep deprived. Leave it alone that she made the statement many times. Leave it alone that she was using the statement to show that she is ready on day one because of her “combat service.” Does she really think that we are that stupid? Here is the answer to that question, and yes, this is conjecture: Yes. She thinks that the American people are that stupid.

There seems to be a constant theme in this family.  Lie until you get caught (I did not sleep with that woman!) and then justify your lie in such a way that exonerates yourself for any sin (e.g., “it’s a private matter” “I was tired)”.      

I find Obama standing by his pastor more honorable then Mrs. Clinton’s total disrespect for the military that will sacrifice for her if she becomes president and her total lack of respect for the intelligence of the American people.

The following philosophical argument is based on the teachings of Dr. William Lane Craig.

God is the greatest conceivable deity that one can imagine. That is, if one has a conception of god and another has a greater conception of God, then the latter is God.  Why is this true?  If one can perceive a greater God, then the lesser god is imperfect. Both Islam and Christianity hold to this view. In both faiths God is omnipotent. No one can come behind and think of a more powerful God. In both faiths God is omnipresent. No one can think of a God who can be in more places. And, in both faiths, God is omniscient. No one can think of a God who knows more.

IN the Christian faith, however, God is all Loving. The apostle John even goes on to define God as love (not that love is god…as  some wackos hold). The God of the Bible loves unconditionally. We don’t have to do anything.

"...I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge..."

Not so in Islam. God is not all loving. His love requires that one earns it through works and moral upright living. The Koran teaches that “God loves not the unbelievers, God loves not the evil doers, God loves not the proud…” The God of Islam loves conditionally.  Unfortunately, if the God of Islam is perfect, by definition, all who fall from his moral standards would be evil (different argument; different day). 

Therefore, the greater of these Gods is the God of Christianity.

Note:  Picture of my cat chilling is simply an appeal to emotion. 

We will put the last two sermons online soon.  Currently, we have over 50 other messages available free at  farmercitychurch.org

I want to start with where I left off last week. I kind of set myself up for probably one of the hardest questions ever asked: Who is the real Jesus? It’s easy to say what He’s not. He cant just be a good prophet, teacher, or ethicist because of certain claims. He claimed to be the truth…claimed to be equal with God. If He were not who He said He is, then he would be a nut or a liar.

I can say that He’s not this natural man, this historical "Discovery Channel" Jesus that is different from what is taught in the bible. The evidence demands that something supernatural occurred. A new religion started. The first and closest disciples believed they saw Jesus alive after He was crucified, some of Jesus harshest critics were converted because they believed they saw Him alive…

Their belief brought real change to their lives; they were willing to die for their beliefs; they did die for their beliefs. Only one possible event is sufficient enough to answers what we know happened in history: Jesus was crucified and indeed, He was raised from the dead. He’s not the historical Jesus of the Discovery channel. I’m finding it really easy to tell you what He was not.

To tell you who the real Jesus is…different story. I can give you one of His many titles. The Christ of God was the answer that Peter gave to the Jesus’ question: who do you say that I am? Jesus said Bingo Peter! You got it. Blessed are you…I could tell you that Jesus is the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Son of David, the Christ, Emmanuel, Wonderful Counselor, Everlasting Father, almighty God, Prince of Peace, the gate, the way, the truth, the light, the good shepherd…and I could go on (alpha/omega), and on (bread/water), and on (life/light) and on.

Insufficient. Those are just titles. Each title needs explaining. Each title needs its own sermon. Each one takes you down a path that never ends. I’m finding it impossible to tell you in words who the real Jesus is. Let me be honest, I don’t want you to just know a sentence, a paragraph, an illustration, or an analogy that explains who Jesus is. I dont want to be the man to try and explain who Jesus is in such a manner.  Any literary box does the real Jesus an injustice. Just words.  And no amount of words can capture who Jesus is.

Do you understand the significance of that statement? There are 800,000 words in the English language, 300,000 are technical terms. The average person knows 10,000 words and uses 5,000 in everyday speech. A journalist knows approximately 15,000 and uses around 10,000. I’m convinced that no combination of these words, used or not used; known or not known could possibly paint an accurate picture of the Real Jesus. Insufficient. Not good enough.

I have failed you as a pastor: I cant answer the question…who is the Real Jesus. I don’t have the vocabulary, the mental capacity, the time, or the stamina. So I will play the role of the politician.  I will answer another question that is similar in nature.  Who is God? Now, unlike the question “Who is Jesus?” I think that I can answer this question, and, I think that I can answer it using only one word.

And the word is just that: Word. In the Greek, it’s pronounced Logos. The gospel of John starts out, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.”

The "Word" is God's communication, his express divine image of who He is...

One of the accusations I used to lay down against Christianity was that they had created a God to make it easier to go through life. The ex-governor Jessie the body called it a crutch. After years of study, I’ve changed my mind: We didn’t create this God in this bible. His mere presence alone will knock you into the fetal position.

If I were going to create a god that would help me through life, fulfill my deep need for Him, and be a little safer, I’d be more inclined to create the god of our culture: A god that has no absolute truth; one that wont judge you. Everyone would have to memorize the first part of Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge…”

My god will be a tolerant god. And by tolerant I don’t mean what the bible meant: that God will tolerate one’s bad behavior for a time so that they might come to repentance. What I mean by toleration is that god will just accept who I am.

The new and improved god wont send a person to hell. I had met with some Jehovah Witnesses at a bible study. They had said that growing up they were deathly afraid of this idea of hell. The JWs taught them that hell was a fabrication. Tears came from their eyes as they explained how happy they were that they finally found a reason to believe. A good God, after all, would never send a person to hell. So they exchanged the real God for a lesser god. Many would argue a better God.

I’ll be perfectly honest, I don’t like the idea of hell. C.S Lewis said that he hates the doctrine of hell. But he cant change it, remove it, or line item veto it because of his discomfort with it. Why? Let me ask you: Anyone here ever try to build a house of cards? What happens when you take away the bottom card? It all falls down. Anytime you take a piece of who God is away, all of your theology falls down, and the great Jehovah turns into something less.

No judgment; no hell. God’s ability to ultimately judge sin that is infinitely off of His standards is gone. God is no longer just or sovereign and no longer good for He cant stand up for those people who have been wronged. He is also no longer worthy to be worshiped. No hell: no human dignity. Either love God or be physically annihilated. Hell exists to give people who don’t love or want to have anything to do with Him a place to go. Hell makes perfect love possible in that it gives us choice.

Pastor Mike, you make hell sound so good. I’m not saying that. Hell is the absence of God…the absence of all that is good. And ultimately that’s my point. You don’t get to choose what you like about Him and throw away what you don’t like. It’s all or nothing. The bitter irony is that we do need God. God is uncomfortable to be around so we remake Him. Our new god is no longer the real God and wont fulfill our needs....

On to a new topic for the next couple of weeks….

With Easter in the horizons, we can only expect an onslaught of documentaries, news stories, and “specials” reporting the search for the “real Jesus.” The wisdom of this world purports that we cannot trust the four gospels that we do have due to the fact that many of the claims of the gospels are impossible (e.g, dead men do not come back to life, so that part of the gospel is a fabrication).

My next couple of sermons will look at some of the many different Jesus there are, how are beliefs shape who we are, how who we are shapes the Jesus that we believe in, and who Jesus believed he is according to the four gospels that we do have and how we can trust this. Finally, I want to look at why this is even important.

You can hear my sermons at farmercitychurch.org I will also publish an abstract of each week’s message on this page.

Here is a couple of snapshots from this week!

Victory Over Tyranny at the battle of the bands.  The "kid" in white is my son Kyle.

Baptism of Lauren.  

This week we have two baptisms! We will celebrate the Lord’s Supper! And we will be celebrating our vision, purpose, and values. What a week.

I saw a bumper sticker this morning. It said, “Jesus is coming…look busy.” Man, the world has some great lines, but some bad theology. Here’s a thought: Jesus doesn’t want you to just do the job he has for you. He wants to build His relationship with you as you do the job he has for you. In fact, He wants you to rely upon Him as you do the job that he has for you. So, instead of having a God who just tells us what to do, we have a God who works through us to do the things that He wants us to do. Jesus says that we can do nothing without relying upon Him. Jesus says that He will give us the words that we need when we need it. That’s a master who is involved in the work that He has given us!

Here’s a thought: If you’re just standing there, looking busy, and not doing the things that God has called you to do, are you really in a relationship with Him? Me thinks not.

This week I get to talk about sex. I have to say, as a preacher/pastor, I’m for it. Church needs to be a place where we speak of sex in a very positive manner, not just the stuff that we’re against. A few areas that I’m going to hit are as follows:

Sex is good for procreation…

Sex is good for spousal unity…

Sex is good for combating temptation…

I may also look at the myth of casual non-committal sex from the woman’s perspective.

I do feel strongly that as ministers (all Christians are ministers) we need to promote the positives about sex within the marriage. For the most part, when it comes to sex, Christianity today is known for what it is against: homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, sex outside marriage period, and anything “fun.” True (except for the fun part), sex needs to be confined to the parameter that God set and anything other is an abomination (His words not mine). Having said that, the Bible is not mute on the beauty of sex. Song of Solomon paints a wonderful picture of how beautiful it is when a husband and wife come together!

Why do I feel so strongly? Those that pervert, dirty, sell, and destroy God’s gift of sex have no problem communicating their ideal of “good” sex…and in doing so, have led countless people to their own desensitization and/or destruction.

Our teen group is arguing whether or not morality is black and white. I thought I would weight in…hopefully with as few words as possible. Let me start of by saying that I believe that morality is with a doubt black and white. Now don’t close your mind and shrug me off as one who hasn’t been “enlightened” yet. I assure you, I immerse myself in that crap on a continuous basis.

Of course if we look at morality from the big picture its going to look gray, but I believe that is so because one is trying to look at many different moral issues at once. When one does that, they see black issues and white issues, and the combo of the two looks gray. Therefore, from a holistic view, morality is gray. But it is a fallacy in logic to apply the attributes of the whole to the individual units that make up the whole. I believe that if one takes a look at each individual unit (specific cases), one will find what one ought to do or what one ought not to do (therefore black and white).

For example, the issue of killing an innocent person is gray. Sometimes killing an innocent person is good and sometimes it is bad (gray). It was wrong to kill those five ladies in that Lane Bryant store in Chicago. No amount of justification could possibly make it right. So when would it be good to destroy an innocent life? Recently, the terrorists strapped a bomb to a mentally handicapped woman and then detonated the human bomb once she entered a crowd. Now, if you saw the woman coming and you knew the situation (suicide bomber controlled by remote control), you would do a good thing by shooting the woman before she entered the crowd (utilitarian ethics) for the many would benefit by the sacrifice of the few (the poor woman and the individual who shot her are the victims {after all, that would mess one up psychologically}).

The point is that when you look at each case dealing morality, you can determine what one ought not to do or what one ought to do: black and white.

What about moral dilemmas? It is because morality is black and white that we have dilemmas! A moral dilemma occurs when one must do a bad thing in order to bring about a good thing.  If morality were shades of gray, one really couldnt have a moral dillema. 

Shocking title:  The sin of congregational rule.  Let me explain.  We live in a nation that values representative leadership. We elect our leaders, and if those guys and gals fail, we fire them. What’s happening now in America is a testimony to this. What’s the buzz word in American politics? Change! Politicians don’t even have to say where they want to take us, just by presenting their selves as an instrument of change is enough to galvanize the masses.

From business to sports teams, representative leadership is the American paradigm. Don’t like the leader? Is the organization dying under their leadership? Remove him/her from the position and put in a leader that will move the organization. Of course even in congregational ruled churches we have this mentality. That is, if the church is failing, they will fire the pastor.

Now here’s my problem with this: Congregational ruled churches are often the polar opposite of a representative ruled leadership. The congregation as a whole makes the decision on which direction they are going to go and they direct the leadership. Only if the congregation makes bad decisions are they willing to go back to the rep. paradigm (that is, fire the leader for the bad decisions the congregation made).

Furthermore, congregational ruled churches are ruled by the majority. What’s wrong with that? Well, if you have been to church lately, you might notice that a majority of people are not being led by the spirit, or in the bible, or gifted with leadership, or following God’s guidance. The majority can be wrong. It creates divisions and factions.

The church needs to be ran by leaders. These leaders need to be held accountable (for their theology, walk, and fruit). If they fail as a leader, remove them. That sounds hard! Well...you know that the church is responsible for bringing the wisdom of God (that is, the gospel that is found in Jesus Christ) into the world. To not do so is a sin (for the church). The body of believers would bend over backwards to kick a pastor out who was preaching against the trinity. They would fire that leader if he were having an adulterous affair. Why? Cause this is sin. Is it not even more of a sin not to be bearing fruit in the church? Fire the leader.

Now many will think this is harsh…and that’s why only those called to be leaders should be leaders. Not the masses that are not even willing to take responsibility for their bad decisions.

Now before you loose your mind, I'm not saying that you cant lead.  Just do so the right way:  Get into the scriptures.  Improve your relationship with God.  Be full of the Spirit.  And if God calls you to the position of leadership:  Lead. 

Well, it’s been a while. I don’t have any excuses for why. I did finish up with my degree (finally). I have also been hitting my calling as hard and as passionately as I possibly can over the last month. Our church has had some major victories: Highest attendance in the last two years on the most depressing day of the year (blue Monday…goggle it); a powerful youth service; a push for a vision, a purpose, and define our values (follows below).

To say the least, I’m excited about our direction and our calling. I’m humbled that God has chosen me for this critical time in FBC’s life. And I’m proud that He has brought me a group of leaders that are, by far, some of the greatest in this state. God has blessed us!

The Vision for our Church

A church that brings real hope and real change to its members so that they, in turn, may bring real hope and real change to Farmer City and the surrounding communities by being both a minister to those in need and a witness to those that are lost.

The Purpose of our Church:

We will Worship our God.

We will Win people to Christ

We will Connect people to the body

We will Disciple believers

We will Send disciples into the world

The Values of our Church

Our church will be about Excellence.

Our church will be Relevant to all.

Our church will stay on the Offense.

Our church will be Passionate about our God and our calling.

Our church will Deny Self for the sake of the cross.

Congratulations to PABC!  Undefeated season.

Randie posted an argument about abortion that I thought was interesting. The argument is as follows: Pro-abortionist acknowledges that the fetus is a human life. That fetus’ life is dependant upon the mother. No person has the right to be dependant upon another person without that person’s consent. We should allow the host to have the ability to remove the symbiant if they want.

It’s a good argument. I would counter this in two ways. First, though they are correct in arguing that a person can not have a symbiotic relationship with a host without the host’s permission, they cannot argue that murder is the alternative. Analogy: Assume for a moment that I own a property and rent it out. I have to pay the mortgage monthly. I charge X amount of dollars to couple A. Couple A moves into my property. The first month's rent comes due and they don’t have it. By law, I cannot kill them. I also cannot force them out. I have to get a court order, wait three months, and then have them removed. The solution to the above argument is to have the pregnant woman get a court order evicting the child from her womb. Now she will have to wait a little more then 3 months. For a court order to be in affect you must hand it to the offender…and last I checked, that might take up to 9 months. The mother can sue for damages. Of course the baby should be allowed to counter sue for an unlawful imprisonment—but that’s for a later date.

Second, if it is wrong to force a mother to house a symbiant without the host’s approval, then it is equally wrong to force the father to pay for a child that he does not want. I cant imagine that any pro-abortionist wants to go down this road. 

God Bless,

mike

Check out this week’s pictures. My wife, kids, and I took a few days off and went to the Mall of America. They had a pretty cool amusement park in the center, a large shark aquarium, and for you ladies, more shops then you can shake your wallet at. Side note for all of you guys: Just about every store had a bench outside to sit at…you know…just in case you didn’t feel like going into a purse store with your wife.

This week’s question will deal with prayer. I wanted to hit this last week, but I just ran out of time.

For all of you die hard atheists, my friend Nate found this site for you: evilbible.com. Looks like it has a few cool justifications for not believing in God… :) One other thing:  Repent, for the Kingdom of God is near. 

Love ya,

mike

I have had several questions this week via e-mail and I will answer them all.

This reply is in response to the question, “Is abortion murder?” The simple answer is yes it is; but then that reply is always countered with a, “No, it’s not.” And we go back and forth from there.

Let me give you my own personal answer. I believe it is fool proof and one cannot logically argue against it. I will put the argument in syllogistic form and I will use two syllogisms to prove that we ought not abort a child. Remember, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true:

Premise one: Some say that a fetus is a human.

Premise two: Some say that a fetus is not a human.

Conclusion: A fetus might be a human or it might not be.

Well duhhh….that’s a no brainer. Well hold on now. Let’s make the conclusion the first premise in another argument.

Premise one: A fetus might be a human or it might not be.

Premise two: If one aborts a child, a human might be killed.

Premise three: We should never act in such a way that an innocent human might be killed (e.g., blow up a building if someone thinks that there might be a person in the building).

Conclusion: Abortion is wrong on the grounds that it might be a human being.

As I recall, your JW friends made the claim that those who accept money for preaching/teaching are in the wrong. They claim that they don’t accept money (true), but this somehow makes them obedient to God’s commands. Here is where I think they are wrong and should be challenged:

1 Timothy 5: 17—18 states,

The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."

This is a clear teaching that the church paid their teachers. A good teacher was even paid more. If one states that a preacher/teacher should not be paid, they need to reconcile why Paul stated that they are worthy of it. Are the scriptures wrong in its teaching or are the teachers wrong in their proclamation? Don’t let them lead you down a rabbits’ trail until they reconcile who is wrong. If they try to interpret this passage incorrectly, move on to a more direct passage:

Paul states in 1 Corinthians 9: 7—18:

Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast. Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.

Now, it’s interesting that Paul says that he didn’t claim these rights. Some argue that because Paul did not claim the rights to monetary compensation…nor should anyone else (If the J.Ws hold to this…ask them about being married as a preacher {Paul wasn’t and this is why the Catholic priests aren’t}. The JWs hate the Catholics). Paul was making an awesome and true statement. One: it is the obligation of the church to pay those who teach/preach. Two: it is the obligation of the preacher/teacher to preach or teach. Three, if the one (the church) refuses to pay the two (preachers/teachers) it is irrelevant…the preacher/teacher must still preach and teach. Same holds true in marriage.  If a wife refuses to do what she is commanded to do, the husband is not free to disobey what has been commanded of him

What’s interesting is that Paul says that this is a boast. Now Paul cant boast that he preaches/teaches! That is an obligation and no one can boast to an obligation--because they must do it. So what is he boasting about? He is boasting that he is forgoing something that is rightfully his (payment)! Any preacher/teacher out there can do the same thing. That is, they can refuse what is due to them. That is a boast. But here is one thing they cannot do: Claim that anyone who accepts payment is acting outside of God’s commandments! That is a contradiction of scripture. Here is the good news—if a teacher is teaching that it is unlawful to accept money for preaching/teaching—don’t pay them! They are a horrible teacher that doesn’t understand the very thing they claim to be teaching. I hope this helps.

My five year old asked me a question that I thought was totally profound. Now those of you who know me may not be totally shocked by that. You might think a question pertaining to why a sponge would choose to live in a pineapple under the sea would throw me into a mental quagmire. No. The question was much more profound. Little Gabriel asked me, “Who made God?”

Wow! Now before you aspiring apologists shoot off with a quick, “No one! God is the a priori!” Let me remind you that five year olds have not yet grasped the idea of abstract thought…and I tried that. He simply stated that someone had to make God.

I don’t want to try to put something in his head that may or may not be there, but it seems to me that he is grasping the idea that every effect must have a cause. Apologists use this when they argue for the existence of God. Something in motion must be put into motion by an equal or greater cause. We, Christians, say that this first cause is God.

Now our friends the atheists are quick to shoot back, “If everything in motion needs a cause, then God would need a cause.” Bertrand Russell used this as one of his many proofs against the idea of God. So, he concludes, God does not need to be part of the chain of events. This means, and I hope I’m not offering up a false dichotomy here, that one of two things have occurred:

One, an infinite number of causes has happened to get us to where we are now. For this to happen, our universe would have to be eternal. I don’t believe many people hold to this view at all. An infinite regress seems illogical given the evidence: first, we have strong evidence that the universe had a start and we have real strong evidence it is coming to an end. Our universe, therefore, is finite. If there had been an infinite number of cause and effects to get us to this day…coupled with the fact that this universe is pulling apart…we would have self destructed a long time ago.

Two, there was a cause outside of our temporal existence that set things into motion. It had to be outside our time line…if not…it would be part of the chain of events (back to Russell’s argument). The first cause must then be eternal (that is, outside of time). If it is eternal, it needs no first cause. Now I don’t have the time or mental capacity to argue that this eternal first cause was God just that this eternal first cause must exist. Universe evolutionists argue that it was an eternal cosmic egg. It begs the question: If this cosmic egg was floating around for all of eternity…what finally caused it to blow? Because it did blow and is now dying, is it even eternal?

The point is this: Something, outside of time, eternal, and bigger then this universe (cant be equal…that would mean finite) must be the first cause. I just need help explaining that to little Gabriel.

thought i would share....

By Steve Turner

This is the creed I have written on behalf of all us.

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in
horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.

"Chance" a post-script

If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

One of the theme passages for our current sermon series is found in the book of Philemon. Paul states, “I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ.” (Philemon 6)

What a remarkable and powerful promise: that those who share their faith are the ones who have a “full understanding” of God’s goodness as it is found in Christ Jesus. It is still God’s desire that everyone be saved! It is still God’s plan to use the Holy Spirit that is found in you to convict the world of its sin! It is through you that He wants to work in mighty and powerful ways! Those that allow God to work through them in reaching the lost are those that I believe are “filled with the Holy Spirit.” I testify in my own life that when I’m obedient to the call to witness for Christ, I see Him work in great and wonderful ways! Praise be to God that I have had these “mountain top” experiences!

I pray that you too are willing to step out on a limb, invite your friends and family members to know our Savior God! Even if they say, “NO…!” you will still be blessed. Remember, the promise of a “full understanding” is not if they say yes, but if you say yes.

Christ be with you!

Pastor Mike