Dear Timothy,

© 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 by Wesleyan Episcopal Assemblies Pentecostal. All rights reserved

The realities of life have made it necessary for me to reduce the frequency of these essays to quarterly. I hope to find contributors who will add their own unique voice to this appeal for Godly truth and Intellect. God willing we will grow into a monthly newsletter.

New inquiries have been made from Europe and Africa regarding credential for ministry. Let me invite all inquiries. We offer information packets for a small charge which is subtracted from the application fee. The reason we charge for these packets and for application is to insure that those who request this information are only those who are seriously interested in the ministry.

We would also like to invite current pastors and other ministers and ministry professionals to affiliate with WEAP in our ongoing cause to bring a fresh move of the Holy Spirit to our generation. Many have called this generation Gen-X or the Lost generation. I remind you that the Greek word Christos (Christ) begins with a Chi or X. Let's work to make the lasting legacy of this generation a Godly legacy let's become generation C-ristos.

...

A Needful Correction

November 2009

It's ironic the sublty and grace with which I've been admonished for some errors in my last musing. I say ironic, because in at least three cases those who have been so gentle are the same individuals who have spit bile and vitriol over God-given and textually sound musings in the past. The recent comments have been no less public but a good deal less ugly and the difference is noted and appreciated.

That said, let me confess to having poorly edited the prior musing and as a result an internal contradiction crep into the text. This was partly due to a problem with the spell checker and file converters in my word processor, and partly due to my inattention to detail. Because of this a block of text that should have been there wasn't and a word or two was substituted (e.g. eventually typoed as venually? got corrected to venially) much to my chagrin.

The upshot was that the text could be read as if I were stating that only a believer who had received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost was capable of falling from grace, and that any backslidding or slippage after Baptism resulted in immediate fall from grace. This was not the intent of the text and not what God told me to write.

The text now reads as it should have, but all these months later, it is a bit more long winded in the reading. Pardon my slip.

A Tussle for Orthodoxy

April 2009

I have been anonymously contributing citations to support some passages in the Wikipedia article on Pentecost or as they insist on calling it Pentecostalism. Wiki has a standard that requires citations for many things that are simple fact. Ironically one of the critical comments that is often used by editors is {{fact}} which goes to show that wiki insists on opinion not fact. And I've often observed that if they could get away with it they'd try to force you to prove blue is blue.

All facetiousness aside, the problem is a serious one. More authority is given to an uninitiated even unsaved "scholar" than those who are eye witness to events and movements. I understand the interest in objectivity, but if primary sources are rejected out of hand, valuable data are never presented for analysis and a horribly skewed perspective is presented. This has been illustrated most clearly by a dialog that I've been having with another editor who self identifies as "a pentecostal believer".

Several years ago when we came to this article it was a morass of cheap attacks and misinformation supported by the worst sort of yellow journalism coming from the BBC, CBC and NatGeo among others. The picture it painted with unsubstantiated claims was that all Pentecostals and Charismatics were essentially identical and practiced snake charming and drinking rat poison as sacraments. I spent a bit of time anonymously patching this, but I didn't get to finish before other issues drew me away.

In the interim this editor came to the article and began a total rewrite and he has done a good job on the whole.

Our points of contention arose over his classification of movements. Now I grew up in the Assemblies of God and my family for generations have been clerics in first the Wesleyan Holiness movement and later the Assemblies of God. I not only have primary sources close at hand, I have the memories of what I was taught in Sunday School and the pulpit, as well as an Assemblies of God university.

Much to my surprise I found that the other editor, who I'll call Bill just to make things simpler, had claimed that the Church of God in Christ (CGOC) and the Assemblies of God (AG) were part of disparate movements. The claim was that the CGOC was Wesleyan Holiness but that the AG were part of a movement called "Higher Life" (HL). Now I had never heard of this Higher Life movement. Odd that I was a member of a movement that I'd never heard of. Knowing, as I did that the AG was founded by white CGOC members who separated over the issue of racial segregation laws, I was surprised that those men had somehow magically become something else between receiving their ordination in the CGOC and the first General Council of the AG.

Looking into it further I found that the official Assemblies of God history agreed with me (of course facts don't change because a new theory is put forward by a historian or sociologist) and I fixed the text. This lead to a revision war with Bill that ended with a compromise. We agreed that we'd say that the AG started as Wesleyan Holiness but drifted till it became Higher Life.

Since I'd agreed to this I realized I better go check on the movement. What I found was that the HL was a movement in Britain that differed from Holiness in the understanding of Sanctification. HL taught the same Wesleyan doctrine of a Second moment called Sanctification. The only difference I could find was that it arose from the Wesleyan Holiness movement, as a book and a movement begun by William Boardman in Britain and arising from the American expression of the Wesleyan Holiness movement.

Ironically the only source I could find about HL was on wikipedia and we must remember that the AG was founded in the US, in Hot Springs, Arkansas. Many delegates were from as far away as Egypt, but it was an American birth. To claim that it was founded in the US from a movement founded in Britain, based on a movement in the US, but based on the Wesleyan Holiness Movement which originated in Britain. . . You can see how silly it gets. So my initial assertion stands, the AG was birthed in the heart of the Wesleyan Holiness movement.

Now why worry. The issue came up because Bill was struggling with the issues regarding Sanctification. Now I remember the old timers testifying how blessed they were because God's grace made them, "Saved, Sanctified, and Filled with the Holy Ghost." It was formulaic and we all knew this was the same as Wesley's First, Second and Third "moments" of grace. And we knew that the first moment was sufficient to save. The second blessing or second moment was requisite to the third and the third was requisite to the infinite growth available to the believer.

Our view of sanctification like Wesley, follows the Pauline model of initial legislative act followed by pruning and improvement. Most agree Paul was pretty thoroughly removed from the opportunity of sin and was sound enough by his own standards to rebuke not only the bishops and elders under his direct tutelage (Turkey and Anatolia) but others of the twelve (e.g. Peter) on issues of both faith and baptism. Paul never the less felt compelled to confess fault and sin, where most of us would have seen perfection. This wasn't depression, it was the fact that God takes us beyond simple sanctification into greater perfection as we allow him. "Be perfect as I am perfect," is the command of our God.

On the other hand

However, like Wesley, Arminius and Paul before that, we Pentecostals have always taught and believed that it was possible to backslide and that the unregenerate, or those who backslide after receiving the Baptism, must surely be cut off. We see in Jesus own words that many who had the supernatural gifts of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit will be cut off and Jesus will say, "I never knew you." How is this possible, except by eventuality of disfellowship.

There are a couple of fallacies in this argument. First is the idea that it is Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Wesley's Fire Baptism, that is the gift of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Heb 6:4-6 (kjv). The second is the ease with which damning disfellowship can occur. A close examination of the passage in Hebrews shows that it contains a Hebraic parallelism. In Hebrew poetry there is the concept of repeating yourself one or more ways in order to add nuance or imagery to the subject. What we have in this passage is: “who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come”. This is not a laundry list of criteria, but repeating the same concept four ways because of the abject horror the author feels that anyone could be so foolish. Enlightenment, the heavenly gift, the presence of the spirit, the power of the world to come – these are all references to the coming of the Paraclete and the salvation he brings. Rather than the gift of Pentecost received by the 120, this is the pentecostal gift of salvation received by the crowd who heard Peter's sermon and believed.

In other words, falling from grace is not reserved for those fortunate enough to receive the fire baptism as a requisite to ministry. Instead, it is an opportunity available to any believer who is rebellious or careless enough to choose that path.

However, in verse 6 we see it is “If they shall fall away,” that this horror will befall them. If is a contingency, not a certainty. Salvation comes only once, “for it is impossible. . .to crucify Christ afresh”. But it is not easily lost even through disfellowship. In 1 Corinthians 5:5 (kjv) we are instructed to “deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved” in Jesus' own good time.

Why disfellowship? God is omniscient and holy. This holiness is so profound that in biblical times, the officiant would wear bells as he entered the holy of hollies to bring the blood of sacrifice. If the bells stopped they knew the presence of God had killed the priest and he would be dragged from the holiest place by a rope tied to his ankle. To claim that those who face the judgment seat of God could manage to lie, even to save themselves, is a logical absurdity. Holy God cannot abide lying or any form of wickedness and more importantly it can't abide in his presence. Thus the claims of these erstwhile miracle workers must be true, yet they are damned along with Satan and his angels.

How can such a one have been saved, yet lose salvation. We know that “nothing can snatch [us]” from God's hand. We cannot be taken, but as beings of free moral agency and the image of our creator, we can choose to rebel. The loss of salvation due to unrepentant, habitual sin leads eventually to a state where God must remove his grace. We see this in the passage where the rebel is compared to a Dog returning to eat it's own vomit, but we also see it in the parable of the sower.

Much time has been given to the seed that falls on good ground, as well as that which falls among the thorns or on the path. The commentaries bulge with explanations but any honest analysis shows us that Jesus meant the seed to be the word of God, and the soil to be the lives of men. That naturally makes the stalks that sprout, the new life of salvation. But notice tends to pass over the seed that falls on shallow soil. Like the good soil and the path, the shallow soil is unencumbered by poisonous weeds or thorns. Like the good soil the seed finds fertile ground to sprout and begin to grow. But the hard stoney heart of such soil causes the tender shout of salvation to die and dry up. In the end, even the seed is gone and what soil there was has been corrupted by the dead roots of the faded wheat.

This fall from grace, illustrated in the dead straw that can only be cleared by burning, is permanent and irremediable, as it would require that we "crucify Christ afresh." This is an impossibility and as a result those souls that reach this unlikely state are never able to be renewed. One might believe this is harsh, but it is not. God grants those who are saved a supernatural power as a free gift associated with grace, "the power to become the sons of God."

Associated with the sanctification is the power to resist temptation, to avoid occasion to sin and to repent of those sins. Repentance requires that one entirely stop engaging in the given sin, and that one make restitution to one's victim(s), and finally that one dedicate one's life to preventing such sins from being repeated by others. Again, God grants the power, he only demands willingness to obey.

But some sins are just too precious to us. For instance, a Christian believer might have been tempted so badly that he or she marries another believer who committed the sin of divorcing his or her spouse. So we have a case where a Believer has married a believer who has a believing former spouse. This is an abomination before God. Jesus said that the couple are living in open and unrepentant adultery. The only option for them is to divorce. Though God doesn't view the legal agreement as a marriage in the first place and as such there's nothing to divorce. The only option for this couple is to dissolve the fraudulent marriage and reconcile with the previously married partner, if the former spouse is willing and able, and on the former spouses' terms.  If the former spouse is not amenable then enforced celibacy by the (now twice) divorced spouse is the only path. God in the person of Jesus Christ in Matthew 19 is the Judge.

This follows the pattern I mentioned because the couple have victimized the former spouse by committing adultery, which the Bible views as a form of robbery. Your body, regardless of your gender, is the chattel property of your spouse and you do NOT have the choice. You can come to an agreement to remain celibate for a time, or make accounting for the incapacity of one spouse, but you cannot refuse your spouse otherwise. It is rebellion and theft.

Now I know there are practicalities of mood and arousal etcetera, and I'm not suggesting you ignore those, only that you have to make a good faith effort to accommodate your spouse, every time. That's love. Love does not promote it's own mood, by refusing or forcing. But legalistically it is sin to refuse. And the fact of guilt will damage your soul just as the fact of adulterous guilt or murderous guilt will. So mature Christians will voluntarily accommodate their spouses' need for sex out of Love. Period.

Some have suggested that you can never reach a point of losing your salvation. That it's a "finished work" and therefore you can never escape God.

This is a doctrine of Demons. It is intended to allow the unrepentant to as Paul put it, "leaven the whole lump" meaning the whole church. It sounds loving, and kind. But the Devil used to be an Angel, he knows how to fake grace and love in a religious context. The Devil has been in the business of religion for an awfully long time. By encouraging the sinful to feel like they are okay just as long as they pray a little rote prayer of repentance, or confess to a priest, eventually, he encourages the unrepentant to get closer and closer to the edge every time they slip

The eventual outcome is a damned soul who looks good, and speaks well, and may have supernatural gifts of the Spirit, but who is a fraud.  As a fraud, he'll have replaced the fruit of the spirit with the sorcerous tripe found in psychology text books and magazines.  He'll label self sacrifice as codependency, Chrstian love as enabling, patience as ambivalence, etc.  But worst of all, he'll replace faith with belief in a kind of magical emmination, instead of simple trust in the character and compassion of the divine spirit we serve.

Or, conversely, he may claim there is no answer to prayer and God does move miraculously.  HIs brand of Christianity denies the power of Godliness.

Why do they have gifts? Because, "the gifts and callings of the Lord are without repentance." God never takes the gifts away, and even uses the gifted but lost to reach others who are lost and redeem the presence of the gift. It is possible to find a gifted Evangelist who heals the sick, preaches the gospel and leads many to Christ - who is himself lost because he blasphemed the spirit by calling another man of God a demoniac. Such a man becomes delusional. As the Bible puts it, "that they believe a lie." And his conscience becomes seared to the point he never struggles to improve his walk or cares about his pet sin. Even Satan stops tempting him very hard because he's "in the bag" like a game bird.

And he'll start teaching sin and false grace. Grace that is not a precious commodity to be cherished and protected through obedience, but Grace that is a faded tattoo that can never truly be lost.

This counterfeit grace is a stain and it marks the fraud, the servant of antiChrist, like a beacon. Bear in mind this is not a burden placed on the lost and unregenerate. This is a responsibility given to those whom God has supernaturally gifted to be able.

How does this relate to Bill? Well Bill's sources were a pair of authors I am personally acquainted with, although I haven't had contact with one in 14 years and the other in 11 years. These men, like myself, grew up in the Assemblies of God and were educated in the same institutions I was. But, unlike myself never achieved that third moment of grace, the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, prior to becoming influential authors. As such, they were on the outside looking in so to speak. Lacking the perspective to understand the experience they accepted a Charismatic Doctrine that substituted emotional response in place of supernatural experience and gifts.

I have debated this issue with the both of them, though they are likely to have forgotten me among the hundreds of authentic Pentecostals who tried to teach them. So, like the expert skydiver who has never jumped, they teach what they do not know. They are part of a movement that has attempted to eradicate the Pentecostal message from Pentecostal churches and replace it with a Charismatic (second wave) theology which is reformation Evangelical rather than orthodox Arminian (not to be confused with the Armenian Orthodox Church).

This insurgency is designed, like those we've faced in every generation going back to Paul, to divert the church from the simple gospel of Christ into pagan philosophies, psychological sorceries and compromised witness without the power of the Holy Spirit working visibly in the gifts of the prophets.

Remember "the gift of the prophet is subject to the PROPHET"! Gifts are given to individuals, as a reward for their obedience and faith, for the benefit of the church. Prophets, which we seem more comfortable calling preachers, have been the target of every great move to destroy or distort the church. Eliminate the prophets and you eliminate the gifts, as he has done every time in the past. When you eliminate the office of prophet, established in the scriptures, cited in the Didache, and made manifest in the Pentecostal movements through the ages. God removes his spirit and his blessing from the church and the land. God is not obliged to gift where we decide, because people have established protocol demanding God gift their elected leaders. God will move and gift where HE sees fit. As he always has done.

God bless you as you seek his face,

Fred

In His Wings

April 2009

It saddens me how often these musings are inspired by misinformation and ignorance in the pulpit or the tele-evangelists studio. Godly men in the role of teacher and preacher are held to a higher standard in both knowledge and practice of the word. Evangelism is properly the work of reaching the lost on a wholesale scale. When an evangelist uses his venue to teach or a pastor or teacher moves his sermons and lessons to the mass media, it is a frightening thing. He assumes great responsibility for the lives and spiritual welfare of mass humanity whom he has never met nor been inspired to teach.

Such a mass market approach is the proper purveue of the prophet whom we are more comfortable calling preacher. Preaching is the activity of conveying God's inspired word to believers who are strayed from the faith or entertaining heterodoxy, or who are backslidden and in rebellion. We are so much more comfortable with the term preacher because we in the west associate prophet with canonicity, and rightly recognize that false prophecy is a matter of life and death. By calling prophets, preachers, we seem to think we not only reduce the import and urgency of their appeal, we insulate the speaker from the liability toward God that he incurs when he compromises with the powers that be or presents a sermon based on bad scholarship or deceit.

Sadly this semantic manipulation does not dissuade God or eliminate the very serious responsibility the failed or false prophet has to the hearer and to God.

Recently I heard a recording of a man who has spent at least the last 30 years teaching and preaching to the people of North America. This man has a sweet disposition and has helped a large body of believers to fall in love with the scripture and to discover the Biblical patriarchs and matriarchs as real people instead of shallow characters from obscure parables. I'm not sure how old the recording is but I believe it to be at least 15 years old (dating from his tenure as a pastor). In this lesson, he attempted to interpret the passage in James where the sibling of our Lord Jesus told us to "call upon on the elders of the church ... and [their] prayer ... shall heal the sick."

It should be noted that this man is a fairly good student of the scripture, but he has embraced the heterodoxy neo-Irvingite theology that we in America call Evangelical. However he could properly be call a charismatic because, like his Irvingite fathers, he grudgingly accepts the gifts of the spirit including supernatural tongues and prophecy as occasionally present in today's church. He would argue against their proper role as a normative component of spirit filled living.

That is an important observation, in that it skews his cosmology and his doctrine to the point that it is a primary cause of the eisegesis which he exercised in this lesson. His dogma informs his study and overrides doctrine therefore reinforcing his chosen dogma. This is the worst pitfall of the student theologian and should have been eliminated from this man's habits long ago. He took a single word from the passage, the one translated anoint, and attempted to redefine it as medical treatment.

Basing his argument on extra-biblical sources he established the word's common usage to refer to a specific medical treatment common in Hellenistic Greece, and extrapolated it to mean medical treatment in general. He then ignored the proper syntax of the passage and argued that it should have read approximately like, "and they shall administer medical treatment". This is a surprising abuse of scripture given the source, a man who has a history of scrupulous adherence to context and canonical criticism. He compounded his error by smugly announcing, "now you've never heard a pastor say that before!" To be fair, this was after he had explained that he felt unfairly exploited if a person came for prayer when they haven't first gone for medical treatment.

One is tempted to coin the term reverse reactionism, to refer to the activity of liberal theologians who, upon discovering that a preacher of prophet is making headway in bringing about revival and repentance, attack in order to defend the entrenched liberal theology. This preacher would be just such a reverse-reactionary, attempting to prevent God's people from turning away from reliance on modern medicine and philosophies.

Before he was done he had recklessly announced that 1) he had no power, and 2) that he had members of his congregation who needed psychiatric drugs and he would not pray for healing of their minds, and 3) that you should have faith in your doctor. Every successive statement was more heterodox and rebellious than the last. I must admit I was offended and appalled. I can only hope he'll repent and destroy the copies of this sermon.

His faithlessness was tantamount to an argument that the God who made the mind was not capable of healing it. He was also arguing that there is no power in the godly obedience, that the prayer of faith will not save the sick, and that God does not bring the spirit of a sound mind. Essentially he was replacing God with men in the most vomitous piece of carnality and humanism I have seen in a pulpit.

Let's look at the passage. It is patently clear that the passage says, "and they [the elders of the church] shall anoint" the petitioner. Now it may be true that the term translated anoint is the Hellenistic equivalent of "slap some oil on ya," but that doesn't obviate the translation as anoint. What it does is highlight the crude, folksy patois used by the author of James. It's common usage outside of the present context does not obviate the context, and the speaker is just wrong due to bad scholarship.

The present context is calling upon the Elders of the Church. If that Elder has no special power he isn't a legitimate Elder. The office of Elder conveys the power to speak with authority on matters of faith and practice and this passage clearly indicates it conveys a deepened responsibility for the welfare of younger members. This is the result of longer service and the deepened relationship and trust in God's character that comes from long, authentic service (as opposed to inauthentic service which is a waste of time and does produce a powerless and ineffectual leader).

Regardless of any other consideration, the abuse of scripture evidenced in this passage is not only troubling it discredits the entirety of the resulting sermon and indicates a need for repentance on the part of this teacher. As a personal aside I want to make the following appeal to the teacher mentioned above:

You are a man of God, and I have followed your ministry with appreciation for many years. But, you know more than most that the appeal of compromise is an unrelenting temptation for the compassionate teacher. A desire to see our student flourish and succeed can cause the best of us to falter in holding the line of Biblical theology and holiness. But if we do not hold our students accountable, just as they hold us accountable, God will hold us accountable for their blood. If you feel powerless, then I'd invite you to seek the gift of healing and the deeper infilling and communion of the Holy Spirit that accompanies Glossalalia (as opposed to the supernatural gift Xenoglossa).

God is gracious, please hear my appeal. And for the sake of those whom you lead, don't dismiss this appeal with a smirk and a chuckle as you are wont to do. Please brother, show the godly remorse and repentance that you so appreciate in David. I know you have a heart that seeks to know God's heart.

Your brother,

Fred

With This Vow I thee Wed

July 2007

I realize I've spent a lot of time on what Christian marriage and sexual morality is not. In the interest of balance I will make a point of expressing the positive definition of marriage and Christian sexuality. This is a much more difficult task since essentially the position of the Bible is "anything not prohibited is implicitly encouraged and in some cases commanded." 

The best place to start is with the traditional Christian marriage vows. Bear in mind that marriage is validated by scripture in such a way that all marriages between a man and a woman regardless of the religion or lack there of involved in the ceremony, including common law marriages are given equal weight by the scripture. Even the lack of ceremony is no bar to marriage. Simply purporting to be married before witnesses and the community at large constitutes a valid marriage by Biblical standards as long as 1) the parties to the marriage genuinely intend to be married, and 2) the parties to the marriage are legitimately marriageable by Biblical standard. That said, marriage is hard enough to live up to without complicating things with unclear expectations and a lack of initiation.

In order to aid in commitment among other reasons the church has traditional religious ceremonies that provide a point of initiation. This clearly defined point of demarcation and public oath of marriage helps to reinforce the serious nature of marriage for the sincere believer. It provides a context for a crisis event that reinforces the objective reality of being married.

What I've done following is take traditional vows which are derived as an expression of Biblical standards for living married as a Christian couple and look at the legal and spiritual implications of the oaths we call vows. They are in fact Vows before god and man, but constitute a verbal contract in the form of oaths publicly sworn.

The particular formula I chose to analyze was as follows:

First the husband 

I N.N. take you N.N. to be my holy wedded wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till in death we do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and in this intent I pledge my oath to you.

 Then the wife

 I N. take you to be my holy wedded husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish and to obey, forsaking all other lovers, till we do part in death, according to God's holy ordinance; and in this intent I pledge my oath to you.

 Breaking it down the husband's vows read something like this.

The Husband's Vow

I N.N. take you N.N. to be my holy wedded wife,

Holy wedded wife indicates both that the act of marriage is a religious rather than civil observance and that the office of wife is a religious office to which a woman is ordained.

to have and to hold,

In old English have is a term that is richer in meaning than the way it is used in modern parlance. To have is not to merely possess in the simple sense of custody, but to thoroughly control all aspects and features which can be possessed and to have the right of determination and consumption of all features and produce. To have a wife is to possess her sexually, to command her respect for your position if not your person, and to determine the course of her life.

Holding is also very different from when the vows were first composed. A holder is one who has taken a property which belongs to another and is empowered as steward. But more than than holding includes developing natural resources, grooming and developing. In the sense it was intended, to hold a wife is to take possession of her with the intention of grooming her into a finer person and to hold the title to her as a grant of authority from her true owners, namely she herself and God almighty.

Legally this entails the agreement to guide, instruct, and discipline the wife in every aspect of person and personality, taking personal responsibility for her wellbeing and provision. It also entails the grant of power of attorney and medical power of attorney simultaneously and anatomical gifting in toto of a mans person and living tissues, in the interest of meeting the needs of his wife.

from this day forward,

Obviously demonstrates that the title of husband is being conferred effective immediately.

for better or worse,

This is the most misunderstood part. In this context it surely means that the title remains effective even when the husband is ineffective and fails to succeed in his appointed task. This includes criminal conviction, incarceration or legal obligation of the wife, or any other failure. The vow is inviolate.

for richer or poorer,

Whether the marriage leads to, or through times of wealth or poverty, the marriage itself is inviolate. Poverty is no grounds for divorce and a man who leaves his wife because of poverty violates his oath of office and breaks a vow to God. Scripture clearly indicates that breaking a vow instigates a curse from God himself.

in sickness and in health,

Again sickness of your spouse is no nullification of obligation and no divorce on grounds of mental or physical illness is valid.

to love and to cherish,

This is fascinating in many ways. Love is ill defined in any language and for any culture. 1 Corinthians 4 defines it as patient, kind, generous, modest, proprietary, unselfish, even tempered, trusting, compassionate, committed to truth, accepting, accepting, hopeful, durable and permanently reliable. Even still this is just a pale inadequate definition.

To cherish is to place not only affection but inherent value in the object of that affection. To cherish a woman is to see her as an object of fine value and yet to hold tender affection for her as a person.

Combined these to elements of the vow rob the draconian teeth from what has come before. They provide the checks and balances to the great power which a woman confirms in her husband by taking this vow. This juxtaposition of guiding authority and doting lover provides a synthesis that truly meets the needs of a woman and leads her to health and stability that she craves.

till in death we do part,

The vow is both the confirmation of an ordinance and holy order of the church, but also a contract or covenant between the spouses. As such each spouse is party to that contract. The grants of authority and personal power given to the Husband are stringent and the degree of submission and surrender of self determination give the wife the right to expect some guarantee that the value of her service and labor will not be rendered for its numismatic value and then discarded to the exclusive benefit of the husband. In this interest the duration of the agreement is until one or both parties to he agreement are deceased. If any term is violated, except sexual activity with any person other than the husband's own wife, the power to discipline the husband is sufficient to cover the breach and retain the contract intact. In the case of infidelity by the husband, it is recommended that discipline be the only measure taken to adjust the quid pro quo nature of the contract, however dissolution is a much discouraged option.

according to God's holy ordinance; and in this intent I pledge my oath to you.

This term establishes the bible both old and new testament as the legal and religious context for interpretation of the vow and resolution of disputes.

The Wife's Vow

I N. take you to be my holy wedded husband,

The word husband is the English term that really means executive gardener or breeder, steward and landscape architect. The formula again indicates this is a holy order and office confirmed in the wedding ceremony.

to have and to hold,

Again we have the old usage of the word have indicating possession, control and consumption. However having just expressed the intention of setting that possession as a husband overseeing herself the effect of having is somewhat modified. The best analogy is the horse groom and rider. Horses are powerful and deadly beasts, yet with proper treatment and respect they offer loyal and reliable service. A justifiable respect for the danger combined with gentle guidance leads to a mutually satisfying relationship. The horse carries the rider and bears burdens for the rider in exchange for care, and respect. To have a husband is to embrace him sexually, to command her respect for your position if not your person, and to gently guide him in the direction that will meet you own needs while allowing him to have his way and expend his energies in meeting those needs as well as his own with varied cadence and ever changing intensity.

Again title is held at the sufferance of the true owners meaning God and the husband himself.

Legally this entails the agreement to be guided, instructed, and disciplined by the husband in every aspect of person and personality. It also entails the grant of power of attorney and medical power of attorney simultaneously and anatomical gifting in toto of a woman's person and living tissues, in the interest of meeting her husband's needs and desires.

from this day forward,

This is a reciprocal announcement that the agreement carries forward immediately from the moment it is made.

for better or worse,

Again no change in fortunes, legal status or degree of success or failure is sufficient to terminate the agreement.

for richer or poorer,

Financial status cannot affect the agreement.

in sickness and in health,

Mental, or physical health and wholeness in no way affect the durability of the agreement.

to love, cherish and to obey,

Love is a balance to the intent to guide. By making himself responsible and emotionally vulnerable a man is in real danger of damage from his wife. Genuine love will temper her response limiting her from emotional abuse and mental cruelty, or infidelity which can crush the psyche and soul of a man.

forsaking all other lovers,

Obviously this set exclusive monogamy as a term of the agreement. The penalty of failure to meet this condition is flexible and at the discretion of the husband. Valid penalties being disciplinary action or in extreme conditions termination of the agreement.

till we do part in death,

The demands of vowing to take such a high degree of responsibility for another person, combined with the emotional vulnerability and drain of vowing to cherish and love, makes the marriage a great commitment for a man. No man can lightly provide these things and having invested so great an amount of himself he is entitled to a guarantee that this investment will not be torn away, rendered for its numismatic value and then discarded. In this interest the Vow is for the duration that both parties to the agreement live. This vow is a verbal contract and the term of duration is until one or both parties is diseased. If any term except exclusivity (forsaking all other lovers) is violated the power to discipline the wife is sufficient to cover the breach and retain the contract intact. In the case of breach it is recommended that discipline be the only measure taken to adjust the quid pro quo nature of the contract, however dissolution is a much discouraged option.

according to God's holy ordinance; and in this intent I pledge my oath to you.

This term establishes the bible both old and new testament as the legal and religious context for interpretation of the vow and resolution of disputes.

 The vows themselves are both contract and covenant, and like the covenant between God and man they express a contractual obligation. But they also define a healthy and rewarding relationship that brings joy and reward to both parties. It is my prayerful hope that this discussion helps you to grow in your faith and in right relationship with your own spouse or prospective spouse.

in his service

Fred

A Marriage Most Convenient

May 2007

Recently I heard a sermon from a popular televangelist. Now, this man is a part of the growing Epicurean movement in the former Calvinist and Evangelical churches in America. Neo-Epicureanism has found a way to create a fascinating dynamic tension between Stoicism and a sort of "Enlightened" Hedonism (ref. Enlightened Self Interest in any encyclopedia). They blend the sharply defined dualism of the stoics and Gnostics with a licentiousness that changes disobedience of Christ, from a damnable failure, into a mere character flaw that can be overlooked in anyone. Overlooked, so long as they are popular with the people of a given congregation. This is similar to the pride the Corinthian Church took in their perversion of grace and forgiveness. A grace that allowed a man to live in an incestuous relationship with his mother, without censure from the congregation.

This strange belief system lead the speaker to do something that I would respect a great deal if it were coming from someone with a sound doctrinal approach to interpreting scripture. As I have pointed out numerous times, some of the most politically and socially narrow belief systems come from the most liberal of interpretive forestructure. In other words, a liberal doctrine like that of the reformation theologians leads, inexorably, to a legalistic dogma like that of the puritans. And incidentally to a complete failure of the popular piety to reflect that rigid dogma.

The beauty of this particular sermon was that it violated some of the legalism of the speaker's own tradition, by delving into the topic of human sexuality from the pulpit, in a marginally graphic way. By using popular slang as a system of euphemism, he was able to do this without causing his audience to rout. And, he made some very astute points with regard to the Biblical view on sexuality.

Now, most liberal theologies, like the puritanical theologies of the reformation or the ascetic Gnosticism of the Roman Catholic Church, lead one to censure human sexuality and censor any reference to or education in the proper view and habits of the Biblical Christian. Dictates are made, but they are inevitably a list of "don'ts" and these "don'ts" are made up of the worst and ugliest behaviors, in the view of the theologians of the given church body. Lists of "do's" are given no attention and are viewed with the same prurient attitude that a preadolescent takes toward the subject (lot's of giggles and blushes, or angry censure and accusation).

This televangelist avoided that prurient behavior by rediscovering that the "Sex is a beautiful gift from God" doctrine naturally requires a more exhaustive exploration of scripture than is found in the church today. Sex has been left to philosophers, educators and medical personnel to explain and teach, when it is the natural topic of scripture. Scripture spends more time speaking about sexuality in both prophetic dictates and in narrative accounts than most any other topic. If reading the bible doesn't lead to discussions of sexuality, then you aren't reading honestly and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, do we want psychologists and educators teaching our children how to engage in sex, when all those kids have heard is a list of "don'ts" that are supposedly going to send them to hell?

This minister, was rightly lead to broach the subject and he did a credible job of euphemistically walking tiptoe around the sensibilities of some people, while essentially instilling the basic principal that sex within marriage is not a thing God grudgingly allows so the species can be perpetuated. Instead, he pointed out that God ordained sex as component of the first commandment of all time, preceding, "Don't eat from the tree of Knowledge." This command precedes the fall of Man, the flood, The Passover, the Law and the Resurrection -- and yet it has been reiterated and expounded on after each of these events. God wants you to be sexually active and married. Heterosexual activity glorifies and pleases God. In point of fact, it is an act of worship and obedience, and Christ himself warned us that those who censure marriage and marital sexuality are false prophets.

As the speaker developed this idea, he happened onto the fact that the Law of Grace often shows intensification of the requirements made on a Christian. Where before the fall there was one standard, we see greater expectations and higher standards instituted at the fall, the flood, the death of Sodom and Gomorrah, the reception of the Mosaic Law (Torah/Pentateuch), and the coming of Christ; a natural progression, (Heilsgeschichte or history of salvation) in direct proportion to the increased grace meted out with each revelation of God.

So, where grace doth abound, expectations of a righteous and holy God do more greatly abound. This is pointed out by Jesus in different ways, but two that stand out are the attack on Jesus preachments against divorce and lust by Pharisees. In the divorce passages, he says before you were allowed to do thus and so, for the reason of your own weakness, but now "I bring you a better way." This minister pointed out that there is a parallel in the discussion of lust, where Jesus says you have been taught thus and so "but I say if a man commits lust in his heart he is guilty of adultery already."

There are similar treatments of moral imperative salted throughout Jesus' ministry. These two, however, can leave a student theologian grasping for some means to reconcile the passages and reassure himself that Jesus hasn't contradicted himself. Let me assure you he has not.

The apparent contradiction resides in the fact that Jesus said divorce was not allowable for a Christian, except in the case where the believer's spouse has committed adultery. Given that lust is unavoidable for the teenaged, and usually the twenty something male, this would seem to indicate that every marriage is invalidated a priori (before the fact of wedding). What's more, although I cannot speak to the mind of young women, I suspect that the fascination with muscular athletes and large appendages is far from platonic, or even innocent.

These factors would seem to obviate and invalidate the preachments on divorce by our Lord. Worse yet, the narrative of Jesus encounters with the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery, seem to broach an even more direct contradiction given the common interpretation of these events and the strategic amnesia toward certain statements made to these women by Jesus.

Much ado is made of Jesus' challenge that "he who is without sin" should cast the first stone, and yet he, Jesus cast none. I wonder sometimes how the scene would have played out if the accusers had acknowledged Jesus' sinlessness and demanded that he indeed begin the stoning. The passage might have taken on a very different dimension, and I would like to have heard Jesus' answer to them. But, cowardice and unbelief won the day and, when Jesus looked up, he lacked the testimony of even two witnesses. Therefore, he sent her on her way in accordance with the Law of Moses. "For, by the mouth of two or three witnesses let a thing be established." He did give her an inflexible admonition that is conveniently forgotten by most citations of this passage.

If this were a genuine contradiction and Jesus were preaching in favor of adulterers, the whole of the new testament would collapse as just so much historical text. In the minds of some people this is what happens. Let's examine that premise however. What did Jesus mean when he said that the lustful person has committed adultery. Is lust, in fact, a sin limited to married men? No, we hinted earlier that there is reason to believe that women are capable of lust. On top of that, common sense and recent legal cases tell us that people lust more often before marriage than after, with the celibate suffering most of all.

If you read closely you begin to notice that the term used is adultery not just sexual immorality and not fornication. So an unmarried woman who is celibate unmarried and virginal, but who dreams of a man with gentle hands stroking her bare flesh in an intimate way can't be married because she is guilty of adultery. Does this reading make sense? Not even a little.

There is a scriptural dichotomy dividing sins of the flesh from sins of the heart. We see this in the old testament where unbelief in God, Lust, desire for what doesn't belong to you, even lack of sufficient affection for God are sins which bring judgment and damnation. They do not however incur civil or punitive penalties, to be applied by other people or by the state. They are terribly serious sins committed against God alone.

God is depicted in midrash and therefore in the New testament as a bridegroom to the corporate body of believers. This is a metaphysical or spiritual principle that is seeded throughout Jesus' ministry. So in this sense, any sin against God is by definition a form of adultery. This idea is developed in Jeremiah 3, where God depicts the northern Kingdom of Israel as one of two wives, Judea being the other. He makes a great deal of the fact that he "divorced" himself from the northern tribes because of their sin and unbelief. Then in a twist, he divorces himself from Judah and remarries Israel because the Levites, Jews (Judah and Benjamin), and Simeonites, are going through the motions of serving him but are corrupt and sinful despite their profession of faith.* This initiated the Jilted husband motif that is a factor in the prophets and proverbs and Jesus uses it liberally in his sermons.

For this reason Marriage is sacrosanct to the believer. It is an earthly type in the midrashic sense for the relationship between God and the congregation of his believers. But similarly, in the New Testament there are ways in which we can violate this get or covenant of marriage in a way that tempts God to divorce us. This is the adultery that Jesus is referring and it is a heart condition. When you lust, or even covet your neighbors new car, you have committed adultery in your heart. Even if you have never married, it is adultery against God, the father and lord of all creation. It is adultery against Jesus as Christians are the bride of Christ .

However, since it is an activity of the heart, and not a sin of the flesh, it is not a sin against one's present or future spouse. Don't make the mistake of thinking a sin against God is lesser than a sin against your spouse. When God divorces people or nations, lives are lost and souls are damned to eternal exile from God's presence (fate far worse than death). But what it does clearly show is that, your spouse is not entitled to divorce you because you have lusted after another.

In fact, Jesus clearly indicated that when a person divorces an adulterous spouse, the faithful spouse has shown an unforgiving and hard heart in defiance of Jesus' commands. The faithful but unforgiving spouse has made it through the eye of a technicality, but is not in right relationship with God. They have succumbed to legalism and selfishness. They get their freedom from the adulterer, but loose the opportunity to bring that spouse home to Christ and have a long way to go in repairing their relationship with Jesus.

Is there a point where divorce becomes necessary? There are some simple guidelines to follow in these cases:

1. When the threat to your children, or your life due to sexually transmitted diseases, or the hardening of your hearts due to the loss of intimacy threatens bodily harm -- you have to weigh the consequences of your actions and prayerfully seek God's guidance. He won't be happy with divorce (Mal 2:15-17;Jer 3:1), but being certain to get permission first will go a long way in preserving your relationship with him. Bear in mind that remarriage to a third party is only possible for a spouse who has not committed adultery prior to divorce.

2. Be sure that you have not retaliated against your spouse by engaging in adultery as well. If you are both guilty, neither has the moral high ground and neither has the authority to seek divorce. In that case, divorce itself is adultery and you both will suffer. In fact, when you are the victim of an adulterous spouse, do not seek companionship from anyone who is a potential sexual partner. You will inevitably find yourself embroiled in one form of adultery or another. You will not be able to get good guidance from God because you will be distracted by ungodly impulses.

3. If both spouses are Christians, you really only have the option of mutually agreed upon separation. And it must be mutual agreement. Divorce is really not an option. If a new believer has a spouse who is not a believer at the time of the divorce, and has never professed Christ, the non-believer is free to divorce the believer and in this limited case the Apostle Paul has granted, by the authority of the spirit an a priori (before the fact) annulment with the words "it is as if your were never married."

Ultimately, the reason the question of divorce comes up so often is the rebellious nature of western society. Divorce cannot subside from the words of God's prophets because God's people have become so corrupt and self-righteous they challenge the Corinthians of the first century. Where in Corinth they were proud to be so forgiving and loving that they allowed a man to attend services, knowing that he was sleeping with a woman who was his mother or stepmother -- today, homosexuals and pimps are welcomed and the unbiblical proverb is cited that church is where sinners belong. This is the same licentiousness that Paul took 3 chapters in 1 Corinthians (ch.s 4-6) to challenge.

The most disheartening thing is the fact that the corruption has grown to such proportion that it is commonplace to find ministers of the gospel who are themselves living in a parody of marriage with a spouse who was formerly married and has divorced without benefit of the biblical standards on divorce. In other cases homosexuals, gluttons and the patrons of whores are standing in pulpits on a Sunday morning, officiating at communion, while preaching that men who have succumbed to reviewing pornographic images are guilty of adultery and therefore subject to divorce.

Talk about Pharisaic hypocrisy. These Corinthian Family Values are strangling the life from the church and destroying the testimony of its people. It's time for the people of God to discover how to make their yeahs be yeahs and nays be nays, such that "I do" at the altar is genuinely binding even during the worst of times, just as the oath of marriage says. Life long marriage even when you decide at some point you may have chosen the wrong spouse, needs to be the rule not the exception. And that "wrong" spouse should never be made to know that they were wrong. The believer has access to a supernatural font of love and compassion. If Jesus can die on a cross for you, you can make a loving home with your spouse. If you can't and you abandon your spouse, you become responsible to God for their sex life (Matt 5:22), however sinful it may become. Imagine living out a life walking in the spirit and, when you face God, losing out because you were so hard-hearted you divorced your husband for reason that he snored or wasn't hardworking enough to suit you.

When you break a vow, even a marriage vow, you are under condemnation, and Calvinist Dualism heresy aside, God will hold you accountable both in this life and in the next -- even if you are a believer, and even if you can legitimately stand and say, "Lord didn't I preach in your name, didn't I heal the sick, didn't I cast out demons." Of such Jesus spoke in the "Parable of the Sower". They are the shallow ground. In fact, they do convert to Christ, but in the end they fall away and are damned. Repent. As we all must. Your immortal soul is at stake.

God bless you as you seek him in spirit and in truth.

With love,

Fred

* There is a third clause in that passage where Jeremiah reports God's intention to merge the pagan Israelis, Righteous Gentiles and Judah and corporately refer to all of them as Jews.

Sexy Christians

March 2006

Recently the media has been hammering home a particularly crude form of propaganda regarding what they and law enforcement have come to refer to as "sex offenders". The typical mode is to feature a lawyer who is representing a defendant from a particularly ugly accusation. This lawyer is then pitted against a team of law enforcement, right wing politicos and a particularly abrasive and belligerent district attorney.

The announcer will pretend to be neutral, but go out of his way to undermine the lone defender. The intention is to use cracks, potshots and logical fallacy in an attempt to confuse the audience. Then end up with the sanctimonious proclamation by the DA that, "these kinds of offenders can't be rehabilitated."

This ongoing move is only one part of a terrifying trend in American jurist imprudence and in so called conservative values. Marking the sex offender with GPS tracking devices, state registries, automatic notification of neighbors and coworkers has been a huge step toward the sort of excesses that were carried out in Nazi Germany and in the USSR. People who have owned a house in a particular place for many years are now forced to sell and move in order to find a place that isn't within a certain distance of a school.

For a single mistake, however egregious, this is tantamount to cruel and unwarranted, unusual punishment. Shall we tag every convict? Perhaps we should tag governors who have settled out of court for fondling costars. Perhaps we should tag presidents who have sex with interns less than half their age or sexually assault campaign staff and senators who send homosexual cybersex emails to underage pages.

Would law makers and law enforcement be so ready to take such a draconian approach if all sex offenses were similarly treated? How about tagging cops who commit adultery, and DAs who visit prostitutes? How about tagging legislators who commit sodomy, there would be some quick backpedaling then.

The basic premise of this movement is the idea that there can be no rehabilitation for sex offenders. This sentiment couldn't be more erroneous or lacking is simple human compassion. It is fueled by nothing less than a desire for vengeance. Vengeance is illegal under American Legal tradition and these laws are certainly unconstitutional.

But who is the F. Lee Bailey who will stand up and defend the rights of these admittedly repugnant offenses? Because that is the way the propaganda paints this issue. It's not about people who for whatever motive have committed a heinous and repugnant crime. It's not about people who have deprived a family of loved ones or who have damaged a loved one in a life altering way. It's about criminals or, in some cases, falsely accused innocents, who are being seen as the crime itself rather than human beings.

This rush to perverted justice and dysfunctional thinking is not newly born with sex offenses in America. Twenty-five years ago the great bugaboo that law enforcement used to justify wicked infringement on civil rights and oppression of the people was drug addiction. Millions were imprisoned and innocent lives were sacrificed when whole families were regularly deprived of house and home because one individual was dealing drugs. People were imprisoned where they were raped and fed even more drugs, only to be released with no treatment and soon found drugs on the street. This was called justice.

Someone once said, when the only tool you have is a hammer you see every problem as a nail. This certainly applies to psychology or sorcery. When the only tool you have is a couch, then you see every problem as a coma. Applied to the church, when the only tool you have is healing, you see every problem as a wound. There is no more effective paradigm.

Sin is a wound in the soul or psyche of man. Drug abuse and sexual abuse are two of the main issues for which Christianity, and Orthodox Judaism have no lack of treatment. God encourages free and open affection and uninhibited sexuality. Plentiful sex is such a priority for God that even in the cursed state of sin, he commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The vast amount of Biblical treatment of sex is not intended to inhibit human sexuality but limit the paradigms of interpersonal relations in a way that is healthy and conducive to good social order and the protection of innocents.

Similarly the treatment of the soul or psyche is not ignored by the Bible. While philosophies such as psychology are censured and the use of drugs or meditative techniques are strictly forbidden to the believer, the bible in toto is primarily a tractate on how to achieve good relations with God and mental or soul (pyschic) related healing.

The old testament law proscribed death for the psychologist with his manipulative brainwashing and vain philosophies, the psychiatrist with his pharmacopoea, or the witch who proscribes various worts and herbs. Under the new covenant we are instructed to reach out to these deceived and destructive sorcerers and lead them to salvation and rehabilitation. Similarly we are to heal the victim of sorcery, whether that is a valium addict, or the person who has lost the ability to function without brain altering 'antidepressant' potions, or the marijuana user who mellows out his stresses.

Drug abuse is one branch of sorcery, which is generally the alteration of perception and manipulation of consciousness or brain washing through mesmerism, hypnosis, pharmaceuticals, neurolinguistic programming, self-hypnosis and/or redactive psychotherapy. Because of this it is considered rebellion against God and is very prominently censured in both the old and new testaments. God is very clear that magical thinking and new age techniques are neither new nor tolerable. But the Bible never leaves one with condemnation and no means to effect a correction.

Because the prison system had no answers and psychology is impotent to provide any relief or aid to a suffering mind, these people were deemed incorrigible. The grand pontification by many DAs was that 'these people' could not be rehabilitated. When criminal justice departments finally gave up and got out of the way, the church went to work. Because, the answer to every problem is Jesus.

Christ centered drug programs such as Teen Challenge have a less than 10% recidivism rate. I'm not sure of the statistics with regard to Chabad houses, but my suspicion is that they are similar. God is our healer and our counselor. God is the savior. When a drug user who is "not rehabilitable" genuinely encounters God there is a genuine change in the very make up of his personality. He will change in such a way that he is no longer an addict.

I'm not talking about some anomalous or anonymous higher power (which by the way has some effectiveness but a much higher recidivism rate). I'm not talking about numbered steps that magically redeem you, and have to be repeated incessantly because you are forever bound to the addiction and only get by day by day and by the skin of your teeth.

I'm talking about real and permanent healing. If you break your arm and it heals, it will be forever different but it will be whole and reliable, so long as you do not break it again. Choosing not to fall from great height is usually sufficient to avoid repeating the injury. God's healing for the addict is similarly effective. He takes the sin nature and the human spirit and replaces it with his own. The life force within you becomes that of God. You become converted into a new thing. Where you were born with a carnal spirit, you have a new life and become a new creation or a new species without the same foibles and faults. Of course perfection is a goal and not achieved over night. But the potential is now there where it was impossible in your prior state.

This is proven for drug addicts and it is proven for all kinds of sex offenders. To God there is no difference between the child molester, the prostitute, the incestuous, the pedophile, the rapist, the adulterer, the homosexual, and those who have sex prior to marriage. All are guilty of a capital crime and all these sex offenders are repugnant to God.

But God also grants mercy and forgiveness. He rehabilitates prostitutes, like Mary Magdalene who was the first to greet Jesus in the resurrection, or Rahab who became Joshua's wife and a mother in the line of Jewish Kings. He rehabilitates Adulteresses like the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery from Mathew's Gospel and King David, who was not only a sex offender but a murderer. He rehabilitates the incestuous like Abraham, and Lot.

Mary the mother of Jesus was innocent, but she was presumed to have been guilty of fornication (which is premarital sex). If sex offenders had been treated the way America now treats them, she would have been branded with a scarlet letter like Hawthorne's character or worse stoned to death. Sexual depravity is rehabilitable. Jesus provides this healing, for by his lacerations at the hand of a Roman and on the accusation of the High Priest of Israel, we are healed.

As we enter this Passover season, let's remember that by the blood of the Passover lamb, we are recognized as the children of God, and protected from the justified touch of the Angel of Death. Jesus is both our Great High Priest and also our Supreme paschal lamb. Let us remember his seder and the salvation in his blood. And in doing so let us remember that a Judao-Christian nation must be merciful as well as just, or God will begin a winnowing.

Tiptoeing Through the Fertilizer

February 2007

Recently I was talking to a mixed group of business acquaintances about the question of liberality. It was the tired old discussion that always arises when a Christian in America admits to Christianity. The immediate leap the average person makes is to political and social conservatism, as well as moral relativism vs. objective values (values based on an external fixed point of reference which is immutable and absolute). The tragic thing is the laughable way these very different continua are typically merged and blended into a confused self contradictory whole in the mind of the critic.

For example, a critic of conservative Christian faith might argue something Like the following:

Christians are so intolerant. Look at the way they judge everybody else's religious beliefs. For hundreds of years Christians have perpetuated the colonial system by sending representatives and provocateurs (i.e. missionaries/apostles) to spread western values. These missionaries tell people their own traditions aren't good enough and try to shame them into changing into westerners. What's worse, Christians have no social conscience. They don't try to help the poor and the homeless and they don't believe in social change. Christians are evil because they start all the wars in the world and they... and they...

Well you get the point I hope. I could go on with this composite tirade that I have had to endure repeatedly from Jews, Buddhists, Neo Pagans/Wiccans, Muslims, Hindus, Native American shamanistic believers from various first nations, and best of all the lapsed Roman Catholic or Baptist. But, the argument presented above is enough to demonstrate the lack of rational thought involved in this merger. If break it down we see that Social conscience is supposed to be important, and the critic equates social conscience with believing in social change or programming in order to improve living standards and protect the homeless, and the poor, and one would presume other disenfranchised groups like orphans, single moms and the list goes on.

So we can gather from that, the following proposition, that 1 (good or not evil people believe in social change) and 2 (social change is attempting to change elements of society that cause disenfranchisement and suffering).

Another earlier passage in this tirade criticizes believers for trying to change traditional elements in other cultures and presumably blocking trends that the critic supports in our own. In other words sending missionaries in an intolerant ploy to change peoples and societies. What is a little known statistic is that believing Christians are 90% more likely to give to charitable causes than the base population. This charitable giving is a huge part of the intolerance cited by my hypothetical critic. More, the missionaries who work in other countries tend to focus on building infrastructure, teaching reading and the sciences, and improving agriculture. This is the teach a man to fish doctrine.

In fact, our master, Jesus, taught us to be fishers of men and to then impart this knowledge to new recruits. This spreading the gospel with a social component of improving practical living conditions is the basis of Authentic Christianity. Jesus taught us to care for the sick, care for the orphaned and to care for the single mom. These commands can be found unambiguously preached in the new testament. Christians believe in social change for he betterment of the individual soul and the community.

This can be laid out as 2 (Christians believe in changing elements of society that cause disenfranchisement and suffering)

With these three facts we can lay out an interesting logical chain in the midst of the critic's own tirade:

A (a form of goodness) = B (social change for the betterment of disenfranchised and suffering people)

AND

D (Christians engage in social change for the betterment of disenfranchised people)

Logically:

A = B AND B = D THEREFORE A = D (Christian behavior in the world IS a form of goodness)

Essentially the critic has argued against his own point without even seeing the contradiction. Now some might argue that the TYPE of social change Christians favor is what is at fault and the above argument is a fallacy for that reason. Well the relative merits of Christians as a force for social change (light and salt/food preservative as Jesus called us) is a question for another letter. However I believe the preponderance of evidence lies well in favor of the conservative Christian. But that leads into the point I'd like to make about the above illustration.

In this letter I'd like to look at how people get so confused in their thinking. A sociology professor of mine had an interesting take on the issue. He claimed that there were three different continua that are perpendicular and generally unrelated to one another that govern religious and social identity. His first continuum was Social responsibility and he labeled the vanishing points on his line as indifference vs. codependency. The second was biblical interpretation which he labeled as allegorical vs. hyper-literal. And the last was political which he labeled as totalitarian vs. anarchic.

Now you have to understand that is has been over 10 years since the class and his precise terminology was different but I have captured the essence here. These are an illustration of the continua at work:

Social

indifference                   codependency
 |           C PG   vs.P           RC    |
<|---------|-|--|----|-|-------|----|----|>
Theological

Now granted, the positions on the continua I have posted are hypothetical but I invite you to study the data gathered by Barna Research, in Ventura California, regarding American religiosity. While Barna uses a very loose and debatable definition for what constitutes a believer, the raw data are eye opening and resolve themselves into something approximating the chart above.

What we find in this professor's diagram is that Roman Catholics lie left of center theologically and politically in American terms, but far to right in terms of social involvement. While churches that arose directly from the protestant reformation tend to lie left of center in all three continua. The Neo orthodoxy that got it's impetus from the teachings of Joseph Arminius falls somewhere in the middle with a right wing leaning. No the teacher in question tried unsuccessfully to draw a correlation between biblical conservatism and social liberalism but as you can see he failed in that.

The reason for his error was that he had made two fatal flaws in his reasoning. For one, he forgot that the European definition of Political conservatism is leftism for the American mind and the European idea of liberalism is rightwing fanaticism to the American. America was born out of a search for political, social and religious freedom that was not available in Europe and much of American political ideology comes from the political doctrines of the Iroquois Confederation. To borrow a term, European conservatism is the American equivalent of Anti-Revolutionism. This is what paints the gulf between the US and it's neighbors to the North and to the south who inculcated European politics so thoroughly.

His second major error was in his definition of Biblical Conservatism. He had inadvertently placed the Calvinists on the right side of the spectrum along with the Fundamentalists. This is a common error and one that both the Protestants and the Roman Catholics perpetuate. It arises from the mistaken belief that Calvin's TULIP -- which was the measure of heresy in Holland, Great Britain and France during periods of the Renaissance -- is a form of hyper literal interpretation of Scripture since it departs from the hyper allegorical stance taken by the Roman Catholic Church.

The proposition that my teacher made was valid, the problem was his skewed view of the centrist position with regard to theology. The Bible is filled, both Tanakh and New Covenant, with clear prophesy regarding the responsibility of the wealthy to the poor, the able to the disabled, and the powerful to the disenfranchised. A truly conservative theological position takes the intention of scripture to be the literal communication of God's will and character to the people who follow his direction. It does not take every reference and passage to be literal when removed from the surrounding context. And it views these texts as a source of doctrine both for theological guidance and also political and social guidance. I would introduce a 4'th continuum, which would be morality. The extents would be license vs. legalism and of course the Biblical message would be centrist.

When one is guided by the scripture one tends toward the middle. As Paul said, "in all things moderation." But that means not indifferent nor codependent. I like to term it interdependent. Interdependence with the rest of humanity, leads to helping with needs and that includes attempting to inculcate values and skills which may be at odds with native tradition, but which improve life for every individual.

It leads not to totalitarianism nor to anarchy, but to Federalism. As Jefferson put it, the ideal American (and I'd say the ideal Christian) is self sufficient, self employed and well educated. This sort of person neither submits to authoritarian nor conformist political dogma, nor does he foment open rebellion where such is not called for in order to correct social injustice. This is the sort of person who risked life and limb to smuggle slaves out of the south on the "underground railway" as the Methodist churches in America did.

This is the sort of person who went to martyrdom in Rome rather than accept the Universalist teaching that all religions are equally valid and a good citizen will pray to Caesar on his day and Jesus on his. And this is the sort of person who will stand against the persecution of a non Christian religious group, out of Love for God's creatures, even at the risk of his or her own safety and freedom. This is the way that Corrie ten Boom's family behaved, as did Gerrit J. ten Zythoff whom I have heard speak on the subject at length. This courage must be a part of the believer even today as we consider the policies of the American and British Governments and our involvement with our nation's politics. Our politics MUST be informed by our faith and a true conservative will cry alongside the holocaust survivor, "NEVER AGAIN!", even if when the subject is a group we do not accept or approve of.

Today American churches are being persecuted for expressing theological and moral opinions on candidates and issues that directly affect their parishioners. This is a clear violation of the 1st amendment -- which was instituted specifically to prevent the gagging of clergy, and the use of financial pressures to enforce the dissemination of propaganda.

This comes back to the root cause of my hypothetical critic's fatal error. He is the victim of propaganda. We face propaganda in the news media, in our advertisements and commercials and now even from our pulpits. Propaganda that says, a good and righteous life has no fear of inspection, therefore let there be unreasonable search and seizure. "Cause you won't mind the invasion of privacy unless you have something to hide." This is an old cry. It came up in the McCarthy era. Old "devil Joe" as I like to call him, taught us that there was a red under our bed, so even our bedrooms had to be subject to scrutiny. The dissemination of false information, or perjury as I like to call it, promoted an atmosphere of fear and paranoia that gripped this country till we couldn't breath. It can't be allowed a repeat.

Churches are being told that they can't preach against sin such as homo sexuality or they will loose their tax exempt status, while "gay rights" advocates are allowed to teach that the church is evil and in effect sinful for opposing homosexuality. George Bush, the supposed advocate of American values and opposition to homosexual marriage, has permitted the IRS to do this. He is the Executive, they answer to him. He therefore is personally responsible for this extortionary policy against the Church.

Churches have been threatened with loosing tax exempt status on the grounds that they oppose Bush's policies on the War in Iraq. They've been attacked by the IRS for criticizing the war and Bush's policies. In a free society, Churches are free to practice their faith as they see fit. If that includes position statements with regard to political issues that affect their parishioners then so be it. Schools are nothing less than a bully pulpit for opposing views, gagging the church is a violation of the 1st amendment. Bush is the Executive, they answer to him. He is therefore personally responsible for this extortionary policy toward the Church. One which, I might add, he benefits from.

Lord help this nation. Save us from the foolishness that is leading us so far astray.

The Substance of Things Not Seen

July 2006

Faith is a topic that has essential, dare I say Fundamental importance to the Christian and to the Jewish religion. In fact, Christianity and Judaism are most often referred to as faiths, as opposed to religion. The transformation of the verb faith into a noun in order to indicate these complimentary belief systems, is indicative of the "real" or substantive meaning of the word, as opposed to the late modern fad or fabulous meaning. Especially in Calvinist churches and among atheist or pagan opposers of the Church & the Jewish people, Faith has taken on a meaning that is not consistent with the English Language or the Biblical definitions. Faith has become a magic emanation resulting from unwavering and unfounded belief.

The natural meaning of the English word faith is trust. We prove good faith in a business deal by providing some gesture or advance on monies or products. This prior gesture shows that we intend to follow through and on the basis of this concrete proof the other party rewards us with faith in our intentions and character. When you have faith in an institution like your bank, you are showing trust that they will protect your savings and investments, and that they will conduct their own investments in a sound manner that returns a profit. Why would people choose to distort the meaning in the case of Christian Faith, so that it refers to an unreasoned belief that has no concrete evidence to support it.

Obviously the Atheist benefits from such distortion by using it for polemic. By redefining faith as a "FAITH" he can claim that reason and intellect have no place in religion and religions therefore have no place in general society. However, this paper tiger offense is only given legitimacy by the fact of inadequate learning on the part of the church and society in general.

This concept of Faith as an emanation is loosely derived from scripture. However, it is the result of a theology and an exegetical methodology that takes small portions and individual verses out of the surrounding context and the idiom of the author and attempts to base doctrine on the literal meaning of these passages as they have been commonly translated. Now translations vary in accuracy and as they age, the idiom used by translators can become as obscure as the original.

A case that comes to mind is the passage where David is hidden in a cave and Saul, who has been hunting him, comes to do something in the mouth of that cave while his soldiers are camped below. David creeps up and because Saul is busy "covering his feet" David is able to cut a piece of fabric from Saul's clothing and leave again. David later feels ashamed and apologizes for having shamed Saul in such a crude fashion.

Now the question lost to history is what does "covering the feet" mean? It has been speculated to mean many things including sexual intercourse, defecation and simple sleep. No really knows for sure. Now when that passage is cited out of the greater context of the ongoing terrorist campaign that David was waging against the Israelis, it can be warped in many ways.

A typical application of the bad exegesis I'm referring to would be to take the passage "covering his feet" and then create as dogmatic rule that no-one who is "Christian" can wear shoes. The reason that would be cited is that Saul the evil dictator, was overcome by the righteous avenger because he was busy committing the sin of covering his feet. So this proves that you had better not cover your feet or you'll be a demoniac like Saul and worse you'll be tricked and overcome by the righteous avenger. Don't let him catch you with your shoes on, instead tread barefoot on God's holy ground like Abraham did before the burning bush.

Now this ridiculous distortion of God's word is commonplace among those who have failed to study, to show themselves approved, workmen who need not to be ashamed. A similar real world distortion is the distortion of passages relating to faith. The verse "faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen" is one of the important passages regarding faith. Taken out of context however it is used to support the notion that faith is something other than trust. This substance of things hoped for is misused to prove the concept of faith as a magical emanation. The intimation that is made by interpreting the literal English is that hoping really hard gives the imaginations of the mind, substance. This is then coupled with other contextually orphaned passages such as life and death reside in the tongue. And a whole pagan magical system of thaumaturgy is imposed on Christianity to the detriment of souls.

These passages are idiomatic and in their proper context it is clear that they are used as hyperbole intended to drive home a very different point. For instance the substance passage is clearly part of a greater dialectic determined to convince people to have unwavering trust or faith in God and in his character and benevolence. Therefore trusting in him and asking him for things in a prayerful and respectful manner will give substance to those hopes as he provides those things like a doting parent. The Biblical author was trying to use a poetic form of expression to stress the importance of faith in achieving answers to prayer and also achieving confidence in the final disposition of our lives.

This point is even more poignantly made in the second clause of the self same quote. The evidence of things not seen refers to the concept of the evidentiary nature of faith. What it hints at is that the "things not seen" in question have an independent reality which is revealed in the faith of the supplicant rather than being dependent on that faith for existence. Simply exchanging the word faith, which is marginally archaic, with the more modern term belief will tend to dispel the superstitious distortions. The resultant translation reads something like: The substance of desired things and the proof of things not visible is belief. And contextually we find that the belief is belief in the character and competence of God. Belief in the character and competence of God results from hearing the word of God.

The other passage, "life and death reside in the tongue", and it's kin are similarly abused. Clearly they are intended to encourage people to be careful or mindful of the potential stupidity and effects of their speech. The extreme application is that of the power to speak non existent things into being. Claiming this power attributed to God, can be possessed by the believer is similar to the claim that Satan made in order to convince Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit. Ultimately it was the lust for power that lead to the fall. The counterfeit faith, as an impersonal power that makes the imaginations of the mind into reality, is nothing more than this same misguided quest for power and rebellion.

Real saving faith is the trust that God is and that he rewards those who diligently seek him. This is a question of character. It is nothing less or more than trust in the reliable character of Christ. God rewards this faith in two ways. One, he rewards the search itself. If you diligently seek God he will reward that diligence by making himself available to you. This availability is the essence of communion. By diligently seeking God you will come to recognize the presence of his spirit (the ruach elohim) and you will begin to receive instruction and guidance in the choices that you make.

The second form of reward is the answer to prayer. Elsewhere we have looked at the meaning of prayer. Prayer is the sort of petition one makes before a court, whether that is a court of law or a noble court; heartfelt pleas made in deference and humility hoping for the reward of a positive answer granting the substance of the request. As we draw nearer to God we find that he is willing to provide our requests and even the desires of our heart.

Faith is the least complicated and the least effort driven function of the believers life. The state of being a believer is all the faith that is. The state of trusting God's character is only faith substance. Ward your mind against disparate voices who are spouting instruction in thaumaturgical rites in place of Biblical faith. Trust your loving heavenly father and allow him to command you. Beware those demonic spirits that would teach you, as Satan has so often tried, that a mere human creation can rise up and, on the strength of God's word or his name (hashem), manipulate or command God. Such is the substance of things feared the evidence of damnation to come.

May God richly bless you as you seek his will and character.

Fred

It's Still Rock-n-Roll to Me

March 2006

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Ephesians 5:22-24

This is one of the most maligned passages of scripture in the New Testament Bible. Many have tried to elide it from scripture because of confusion and/or rebellion. This is a passage that, by definition, cannot be understood by the carnal mind. Since carnality is the ever growing pandemic in the Christian church, it is inevitable that this scripture will be misapplied and misunderstood at best, and in many cases intentionally twisted for the ruin of souls.

This carnality insinuates itself in subtle ways. The immediate carnal response is to demand that the following verse "Husbands love your wives as Christ has loved the church" must be dealt with simultaneously. In reality, such a plea soon deteriorates into a ploy to study the next verse to the exclusion of those sited for this study. In fact, the majority of the church would like to believe, and may in fact believe, that the fifth chapter of Ephesians skips from verse 21: "Submitting yourselves one to another..." to verse 25: "Husbands love your wives..."

The other equally carnal application of this verse tends toward a Sufi, Wahabbi or Shi'ia (Islamic) view of women. And, while Ephesus was a community located on the Turkish peninsula and Paul was a native of Tarsis another community of displaced Jews located on the southern cost of Turkey, such a view is unbalanced and lacks the moderation Paul preaches in the other Epistles. Such a view demands women to assume the role of passive automaton or robot.

Either view is prompted from a desire to patronize women, treating them as irresponsible children who are not only relieved from responsibility but are to be either held in reign or appeased. The first of these approaches stems from the growing antichristian feminism and the latter perverts the concept of Biblical submission. In either case, the result is to forsake "the natural use of the woman" as was warned would be the trend in the last days. This causes this small, generally misunderstood passage to become key to Godly worship.

So let's examine this passage. The common mistake made by both groups is to approach the passage with an eye for the men who may read the passage. Ironically, no great concern is expressed for the effect of women reading Eph 5:26. The common expectation is that a man reading will justifiably or unjustifiably read the passage and begin to demand that his wife become his servant and view her as his chattel or personal property. This is considered his due by one camp and as a horrific abuse of a woman's person by the other.

What both camps fail to recognize is that the passage is not directed to men. The first sentence addresses the passage quite effectively. "Wives, submit yourselves." This is not a blanket statement to all women. The same author tells us, "there are now no more ... male nor female". So then, it can't be intended as a general statement with the goal of causing women to become a lower caste to men. (Obviously women cannot be allowed to assume a superior caste either.) This instruction is directed specifically to women who have married a man and the instruction limits the submission to a woman's "own husband".

What then can this submission entail? Submission certainly evokes definitions that are based on the world history of feudalism and slavery. The pictures of bondage and physical torture in a sexual context blend with pictures of black slaves being raped by white owners in the American Southeast. The history runs to noble warriors raping and getting unwanted bastard children on the daughters of poor serfs who are prevented from protecting those women on penalty of death.

These images cloud our understanding and make woman fearful of, or resigned to, a life of indignity and drudgery. These same images make sane men uncomfortable to the point, themselves, of pretending this passage out of existence. Healthy men are generally unattracted to a passive woman who sets aside her intellect and will in order to be submitted. Healthy men are generally attracted to a vibrant, active and youthful mind almost as much as to an attractive body and pretty face. This is what often leads to the fabled midlife crisis. A man tries to recapture his own youth by dating and bedding a much younger woman with the sort of youthful exuberance he is not experiencing in his spouse. A side effect of the age difference is that the younger woman will often fall into the role of Godly submission, instinctively. She will cater to the older man in ways women his own age feel too reticent or superior engage in. This perverted illusion of the God ordained paradigm for marriage, buried in the reality of adultery, is so seductive that few men have the will to entirely resist it.

This issue of submission carries into the bedroom as well. Clearly, the Bible tells us that a married person does not have ownership over his or her body. A Christian alternative to the Feminist pro-choice mantra would be, "My body Your choice!" Because the Bible clearly commands that the married person is the sexual object and property of the spouse, most people who are aware of this tend to overlook the fact that the commands creating this state are gender neutral. This means that a man is a "sex object" for his wife just as surely as she is for him.

Given that Submission of a wife to her husband and his ownership of her body (California Law would define it is as an anatomical gift) is absolute, doesn't this in fact describe sexual and practical slavery? Isn't it Biblical to expect that a woman must serve her husband passively and silently not complaining or resisting? After all, Onesimus was forced to return to his owner.

These are the common arguments, but once again these are carnal and overly simplistic readings. Let's look at the least read clause in the entire passage. "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." This is the third time he has repeated this same concept in the space of three sentences. Yet most readers have gotten tired and ceased to see it as a practical instruction by the time they get to this line. If they actually read it, they are probably a member of that minority that overly mysticize and warp the instruction into some theological or metaphysical philosophy.

Granted, the passage obviously links the rite of marriage with the ecclesiology or study of the organization and role of the church. This is another of Paul's prose poems, where he assumes that one pregnant point of theology is so obvious that he skims over it and uses it as a proof for another unrelated point. Yes, Paul is demonstrating that the role of the church in relation to Jesus is a direct analog to the role of a wife in relation to her own husband, and not to any other man. However, the author skims close to the edge of suggesting that a husband occupies the role of Saviour and intercessor for his wife. The leads the woman reading it to understand that any scripture illustrating the role the church plays in relation to Jesus, is her rightful role in relation to her husband. The ecclesiology becomes a road map for "wifely" behavior and submission.

This is a relationship that is well documented in other passages, by this and other authors. So the proper way to understand the submission that is indicated here is to look at the role of the church in relation to Christ as documented. The church is called to be a dynamic and aggressive servant. Passages everywhere reveal a role that requires the church to be intuitive in anticipating and meeting the needs of Christ -- to be a repository of trust, praise, worship and active eager service with a desire to please and even exceed Christ's expectations. A passive, flaccid church is rebuked by James, who says simply, "Show me your faith without works and I'll show you my faith by my works." Jesus says of the church, "God loves a cheerful giver." The verses go on and on describing a role of the church as cheerful active excited lover and servant, anxious to not only please but anticipate and delight.

This is the role of a Godly wife as expressed in this scripture. The image is not a drudge, scullion and concubine - grudgingly or helplessly acceding to her husband's wishes, needs and desires - but a cheerful anxious servant and sexual partner anxious to please and delight, anticipating her husbands desires and exceeding his needs. However, she must also be willing to persistently seek her own needs and desires by prayerful request. To quote Christ for the benefit of married women, "You have not because you ask not. Come boldly before the throne of your spouse and ask as a beloved." To draw an analogy from the world, she is to be his groupie placing him on the pedestal of Rock Superstar and Monarch.

But remember, this is an instruction to a Wife not to men. It's not a husband's job to force or cajole a wife to be his groupie, or to request the solution to her needs. Just as the church must assume this role by choice and by faith that overcomes disappointment and disillusionment in the face of perceived failure in Christ, a woman must learn to overlook her husband's human frailty and failing, to the extent necessary to be his committed groupie for life. In fact, the attitude and behavior a woman assumes in relating to her own husband is a public expression of her relationship with God. If she is verbally abusive, uses sex or humiliation to manipulate her husband, or threatens to leave him in order to control his behavior - she is exposing the fact that she treats God with similar impudence in her prayer life and in her Christian walk. If she won't serve her own husband eagerly, proactively exceeding his desires - she doesn't serve God either. This is not because her husband is God, but rather that the same corners of her soul that poison her relationship to her husband poison her relationship to God in the person of Jesus. The one is a microcosm of the other and the two relationships will always be in tandem.

The converse analogy is just as valid in that the role of a Godly wife is a perfect picture of the role of a consecrated church. If the church is selfish, demanding and focused only on her own needs and desires to the exclusion of Christ's needs, that church is rebellious and in danger of being divorced from Christ. If the church is nagging and judgmental toward Jesus, the church will surely be scolded and will certainly not receive his best and most attentive affection. If the church is moody and melancholic, that church will surely tire and exasperate Jesus to the point that he will distance himself and be less than intimate. A church that entertains other religions and gods and who sells herself for money will be booted out as a whore. The marriage killer issues are equally effective salvation killers.

God loves a cheerful giver, and Jesus demands a faithful and devoted church. This is the reason that marriage is a critical issue for the church and why the church is a critical issue for Christian marriage. The two are inextricably entwined.

It is my prayer that this simple message reaches those who have engaged in or counseled rebellion in a woman to the destructions of her soul. God bless you as you seek him honestly and spiritually.

Fred

Fiddling on the Roof

February 2006

Never let it be said that a Pentecostal would be less than forward thinking. After all, we are continually accused of living in the future with insufficient regard to the present. Our detractors have indicated that we focus on the 'End of Days' (escaton) to the exclusion of compassion and social conscience. This can be easily refuted by a factual review of the expenditures and ministries of the major Pentecostal denominations; however that is for another day. Instead I'd like to show just how traditional Pentecost really is.

Recently I was embroiled in an unwanted debate regarding the fact that Evangelicals & Fundamentalists, Protestant Catholics, Roman Catholics, Coptics, Orthodox, and Pentecostals all variously (and contradictorily) claim the succession of the Early Church and the Apostolic Faith. The person in question was clearly trying to create dissention and controversy, so the discussion rapidly devolved into streams of obscure historical references and ancient doctrines.

This often occurs as the 'so called' traditional churches generally wish to pull out the 'bazooka' of their long history to prove their supremacy. While I like to be as forward thinking as any Pentecostal, let me take a moment to correct some misconceptions.

The common misconception is that the Pentecostal movement began some 250 years ago in Sweden, and spread to England then to the United States -- where it found fertile ground spawning new and Evangelical denominations as well as various heretical cults.

This is a view unfortunately espoused even in the official histories of those various 'Evangelical' denominations, to their discredit. This is an unfortunate misconception that denies the very real suffering and at time martyrdom of the fathers of the Pentecostal movement.

The modern expression of  the Pentecostal movement did in fact have a brief excursion into the Irvingite movement which became the foundation of the modern Baptist Churches, however the Baptist churches and the Irvingite movement are in fact evangelical or, to be more accurate, Calvinist in their origins. As Calvinists they still cling to the belief that God has arbitrarily chosen a few people to save and arbitrarily damns the remainder. Further, they see salvation as a one way door, once you are a believer, no sin, rebellion or outright blasphemy can ever separate you from God.

This view is common to all Evangelicals and is one of the identifying characteristics of that movement. They however are not Pentecostal nor are Pentecostals Calvinist or part of the protestant reformation at all. Nor did we originate in the 18'th century. In fact, we do date back to the early church. We have always been relatively few in number compared to the 'church' at large, and our organs of ecclesiastical government have morphed and distorted at times becoming very odd indeed. However, the body of doctrines has come down unchanged from the earliest ministry of the Apostles, and the missions of Paul into the Turkish peninsula.

That claim is made by others, however let's look at some of the seminal figures.

Bishop William J. Seymour

Bishop Seymour was a young and respected Methodist minister, when he attended a small Bible school in Topeka Kansas. The students at that School were engaged in the practice of tongues, healing, prophecy and other examples of God's divine inspiration. Most notable was Agnes Ozman a young woman who went on the be the founding Matriarch of the Ohio State branch of the Church of God in Christ, a major Pentecostal denomination. American culture went into the formation of that institution, later renamed Assemblies of God, so that she, as all Heads of state wide branches of AoG are, was called superintendent rather than archbishop, or one of the other terms steeped in feudal tradition that plague other bodies. [The COGC was forcibly divided along racial lines as many southern states made it illegal for whites and blacks to attend services together. The Black branch of the church is larger in the United States and retains the name COGC]

Bishop Seymour however felt no difficulty in accepting the title and from his ministry more than one denomination was formed under his tutelage as patriarch and Apostle.

One might argue, well there is the proof that Pentecost is a late innovation, if it weren't for the fact that the Methodist church had a Pentecostal origin itself.

Charles Wesley

Charles Wesley was an Anglican priest who founded the Methodist reformation of the Anglican Church in the 18'th century. The Anglican fellowship had undergone many periods of upheaval as the Calvinists and Catholics had variously tried to eliminate one another by fire and by force of arms. This violence was one of the reasons for the colonization of North America by English immigrants. Calvinists fled persecution by Catholics, Baptists fled persecution by Calvinists and finally Methodists fled persecution by Episcopalian reformers.

Wesley was a man with a mission, some might describe him as driven. With the help of his brother John, his children and a personal secretary, Wesley attempted to forge a reconciliation between Aminianism and the Anglican Canon Law. The result, while ostensibly Catholic, is certainly not compatible with the Protestant, Calvinist, or Roman expressions that have historically held sway in the Church of England.

The question is why this discussion of Wesleyan Methodism is anything more than a pedantic and admittedly very shallow historical analysis. Well one might ask. The answer is in the writings of Charles Wesley himself and in those of his close confidents. Wesley taught a faith that at first glance might seem Evangelical. He taught that one must be saved by grace, though faith in Jesus Christ, rather than church affiliation and baptism. However Wesley Espoused the Arminian model that said salvation is a free will act dependent on the cooperation and obedience of the penitent. He also taught in the Arminian tradition that a subsequent work of sanctification must be completed to truly succeed as a believer and to avoid failure and subsequent fall from grace.

Wesley also taught that subsequent to sanctification a 'third moment' or third definite work of grace is the fire baptism by the Holy Spirit. Wesley showed scripturally that in order to be empowered for service as a minister of the gospel and an authentic cleric of the church, one must have received this baptism by fire which is accompanied by, as Wesley put it, 'groanings that cannot be uttered'.

Wesley was a careful man and unwilling to go far in his description or demonstration of said groanings, however he felt they were essential and not optional for every believer and prerequisite for clergy. What we find in the reports by his personal secretary however, show that these groanings are in fact what we in the 21'st century shorthand as tongues. Wesley was in fact a consummate Pentecostal and would have every one of his followers be one as well.

If Wesley was Arminian then who was Arminius?

Jacobus Arminius

Born Jacob Harmenszoon in Oudewater near Utrecht, Arminius was a Dutch reformer who sought to correct the wrong turn the reformation had taken under the influence of Calvin's successors. Arminius restored the portions of scripture which the Calvinists had chosen to discard in order to support their nihilistic view of humanity and the role of an individual in his own salvation. Falsely accused of various heresies including neo-palagianism, he was acquitted at trial and went on to develop a Restorationist movement that till this day has had at it's heart the reintegration of doctrine and scripture, previously discarded in order to support misguided or heretical dogma held by the other major branches of the church.

Arminius takes the Pentecostal movement back to the 16'th century and while neither he nor his contemporaries embraced the actual practice of ecstatic gifts, you see it in every branch of his followers, including the Quakers, Shakers, Anabaptists, Methodists, etc. The restoration of discarded scripture, by which I mean scripture intentionally ignored or misinterpreted in order to support dogma, lead to a new revival of the church and an exploration of those things which had been lost to the church at large prior to the renaissance.

Medieval Mystics

Throughout the medieval period we see the church fathers embracing the authentic if somewhat mystical practice of ecstatic prophecy and miraculous gifts, followed unfortunately by the acquisition of the glory of those events not for our savior, but rather to bolster the reputation of the already bloated and corrupt Roman Church. This is what led to the renaissance reformation and subsequent Restorationist Movement which shaped the Dutch Reformed Church.

One might think the age of enlightenment and the renaissance at large was a time where ancient Greek Philosophies were allowed to corrupt secular society and were thus in some way ungodly. Some of the excesses of the period would almost support such a claim. The problem with that belief is that one must question, where did these terribly damaging Greek works -- such as Aristotle, Euclid, Pythagoras, etc. ' come from.

The answer often spouted erroneously by the uninformed is 'from the Muslims!'  Many of the inhabitants of the Christian kingdoms of Western China and Northern India fled into Europe to escape the advancing horde of Tartars and their Mongolian slaves. This brought believers, who often carried copies of rare works with them, into the west where they often integrated their own traditions with those of small parishes.

Islamic jihad against southern Europe did in fact bring copies of these works back to a Europe that had been plagued by book burnings and censorship by the Roman church throughout the so called dark ages. In point of fact, many medieval priests were so illiterate that they memorized their Psalters and Office and even bible 'readings' -- if I dare use that word -- because they could not read them and would have been legally prohibited from owning a bible in the first place. This made parishioners more open to influence by older more Biblical faith, that was brought into Europe by the Nestorian Believers, than they would have been if the parish priests had been Biblical scholars themselves.

It was the conundrum faced by the medieval church, educate the priest and he might revolt against unbiblical Dogma on his own. Leave him uneducated and he is vulnerable to persuasion.

So Christians are historically anti-education and there is no connection between the Aristotelian approach to Biblical hermeneutics of the reformation, and the traditional church. Such a  conclusion would be quite erroneous.

The Eurasian Steps were home to Christian kingdoms where the sciences as well as the Baptism in the Holy Spirit were kept alive as evidenced by myths of the kingdom of Prestor John.

The Islamic nations of the medieval period and prior to that, were some of the best educated students of science possible at the time. Science, Art, and Literature flourished in ancient Middle-Eastern, Indo-European cultures. That is fact. What is generally overlooked is the coordinate fact that, the teachers and educators of the privileged Muslim governors and caliphs were Jewish civil servants and Christian educators.

 These Christian Educators were so deeply integrated into early Islamic regimes that there are references to a monk of the sect common to ancient Iraq in Islamic religious works. The Ancient Christian sect found in these regions has been variously called the Nestorians or Assyrian Christians. This name, Nestorian, is derived from the ancient reformer whose teachings they espouse, Nestorius the Patriarch or Bishop of Constantinople.

Nestorius of Antioch

Nestorius was appointed Bishop of Constantinople by Theodosius the II emperor of Rome. Nestor a devout believer and adherent to biblical Christianity, immediately set about trying to correct some of the heresies concerning Mary that had crept into the church since the council of Chalcedon.

Namely, the Church at large had already, begun to erroneously refer to the Bishop of Rome as Pope and had begun to refer to Mary the mother of Jesus as the Holy Virgin and as the Mother of God. This proto cult of Mary had begun to form the seed of the present day heresies wherein Mary is deified as 'co-redemptrix' and Mother of God, or Queen of Heaven.

Nestor, in trying to stop this insurgency of pagan goddess worship, began to preach apologetically that while Jesus indeed has a unique nature both divine and human, none of his divinity derives in any way from Mary. Essentially he was presenting the Biblical teaching that Mary was blessed by being chosen to carry Jesus to term, but that the divinity of God is in no way parented and thus obligated or submitted to her in any way. Nestor in no way denies the Hypostatic Union, as such a doctrine was itself unformed and not yet Dogma, and there is no evidence that Nestor ever denied this teaching after it was codified.

Nestor was slandered by the cult of Mary who could not conceive that the divinity of God and the hypostatic union could surpass their limited imaginations and that a woman could give birth to that which she did not conceive. Further, he was waylaid by supporters of that cult and prevented from presenting his case to the Council of Ephesus. The Council of Ephesus correctly codified the Dogma regarding the hypostatic union but tainted it with the pagan doctrines of the cult of Mary, beginning a long and dark slide into apostasy and superstitious ignorance by the church hierarchy as a whole.

Perhaps the most telling evidence of Nestor's innocence comes not from Nestor's account of the events but from those of his detractors.

"I am astonished that the question should ever have been raised as to whether the Holy Virgin should be called Mother of God, for it really amounts to asking, is her Son God or is he not?" Cyril of Alexandria

Nothing could more poignantly underline the fallacy of the argument against Nestor than this quote. In today's world we might well think that it is intentionally disingenuous. In all probability, the lack of a classical 'liberal arts' education left the Bishop unable to analyze his own dogma and therefore see the fact that he was assuming the conclusion before testing the hypothesis Biblically and defending each of the assumptions apologetically. But even natural science provides a basis for Nestor's assertions.

The advent of modern fertility treatments, in vitro fertilization, and surrogate pregnancy, have proven that an infant with no biological relationship to the mother, whatever, can in fact be brought to term by a healthy virgin. I want to be clear, THIS IN NO WAY SUGGESTS THAT MARY WAS NOT THE BIOLOGICAL PARENT TO THE CHILD THAT WAS JESUS. What it does is show the scientific validity of believing that not every characteristic of the child must originate with the mother . Every natural human child is half the product of it's father. The Mother only provides half the physical makeup of the child. The motility and life in sperm shows that only half the spirit of a child originates with it's father. The union of two opposite lives, an egg and a sperm, create a new synthetic whole. The divinity of Christ's nature, as Nestor intuited, was in no way derived from or dependent on Mary's body or her spirit. Mary was a woman. Mary had other sons after Jesus, and they were the offspring of her husband Joseph. None of those were divine in nature or possessed of the hypostatic union.

In his opposition to the Romanization of the church and by subsequently excommunicating* the Roman and the Byzantine churches, Nestor was merely continuing a tradition held by one of his theological influences the apologetics of Tertullian.

* Naturally the Roman church had already pronounced excommunication of Nestor.

Tertullian

Tertullian was a former Roman Lawyer who converted to Christianity late in life. He was made Bishop of North Africa where he served as a vocal force in the synod of Bishops. As an experienced orator he was quite eloquent in his apologetical treatises, although he did on occasion indulge in the unforgivable act of polemic. Tertullian was indeed a Pentecostal in that he practiced and taught the practice of ecstatic 'charismata' as a natural outgrowth of the life in the spirit. He is erroneously accused of having converted to Montanism, however his own treatise against Montanus and the heretical practices and dogmas of the Montanists lays such specious accusations to rest.

Such accusations arise from his attempts to reform the Church at large, which had already begun to bend under the pressure of the pagan rulers of Rome. Already the Eucharist was being seen as a magical rite instead of a Seder celebration, recognizing Jesus as the sacrificial Passover lamb. Proto Mariology was in its infancy and the adoption of blasphemous prayer to persons other than God, and the adoption of reliquaries and icons was polluting the church. Because Tertullian was so vocal in his attempts at reform, he was ostracized by the church at large and his own movement developed for a time, before being absorbed by the Roman church at large precipitating the rise of Nestor.

By the reign of Pope Gregory, the upheaval in the Roman Empire and the fall of the dark ages had completely distorted the calendar, and to this day we cannot be certain how many years it has been since the 'first' century, or how long it was between the first century and the rise of Tertullian. For this reason among others it is reasonable to believe that the Tertullian mentioned in the epistles is the same Tertullian who later wrote the aforementioned apologetics. This is the position we take until hard archeological evidence, or the return of Christ proves otherwise.

Whether he is in fact the Tertullian of the epistles or another, his Doctrine certainly agrees, in spirit and in letter, with the doctrines of the epistles and of Saul of Tarsi the Apostle Paul.

Paul the Apostle

The Petrine epistles tell us that 'Brother Paul' is an authentic emissary of the Church in Jerusalem and that his doctrine is sound. Second Peter says that if anyone doubts that, they have misunderstood the teachings of the church or the Pauline epistles (and I would like to add: or both). Paul wrote, 'I praise God I speak in tongues more than you all.' So while he gives many cautions against irresponsible usage of ecstatic gifts, he clearly is not trying to argue they are obsolete.

Paul draws us a very clear picture of grace, of humanity, of Deity, and the proper role of women. There is no doubt after reading Paul that he, and by extension the early church would reject the cult of Mary as heretical and anathema. There is also no doubt he would have rejected as heretical any person or body that prayed to anyone other than to God in the name of Christ. There is no doubt he would reject the notion that the 'keys of the kingdom' grant any person or body the authority to prophesy 'ex cathedra' and in doing so contradict the clear teachings of the New Testament.

In the letter to the Galatians Paul writes, 'If anyone, even an angel from heaven or one of [the apostles] teaches any thing contradictory to what has come before, let him be accursed!' There is no doubt. They were excommunicated a priori.

When you consider the grace and majesty of God's provision for this later generation it is mind-boggling. That he could use seemingly terrible events such as the schism in the church and the subsequent infidelity of Arabic believers who were swallowed into the infidelity of Islam; even the Islamic Jihad against Europe, and the Mongol invasion, worked to provide the basis for the continual rebirth of authentic Christian faith, in spite of the continued assault by pagans, the heretics and the spirit of Antichrist. The loss of scrolls at Qumran becomes a time capsule for the verification of the validity of the scriptures. The discovery of discarded tax receipts verify the existence of ancient kingdoms that only Bible believers previously recognized. In his mercy, God has protected knowledge so the faithful would have the tools needed when needed. His sovereign hand is in every current of History. He will establish his church where he wills until the end of times. Praise his glorious name.

Fred

Unrepentant

May 2005

Martin Luther posted his thesis many years ago because he believed that the Roman church had become so corrupt that they no longer taught a form of Christianity that reflected the teachings of Jesus and his chosen representatives. Luther's indictments against the Papacy and its various doctrines were precipitated by the practice of selling indulgences, by priests and nuns who were impious or incapable of keeping the vows forced upon them, and by the thorough lack and even illegality of Biblical scholarship. There were many, many more but these stand out, because they persist.

The Roman church espoused a brand of 'Christianity' that needn't ever confront the man Christ Jesus or his commands to the general population of believers (the body). They preached a message of good works, loyalty to the organization and significant financial contribution -- in exchange for which any lifestyle whatsoever, and any infidelity to Christ or one another could be excused simply by punishing oneself in response to the instructions of the priest.

Where Christ commands confess your fault, and failures to each other, the Roman church organized a system of confessing to the professional clergy, for a price, and being punished by that clergy. This lead to an apostasy so corrupt that a child molester, or professional killer could rest secure in the conceit that he was a Christian, and bound for heaven, without any significant cessation of his sinful lifestyle.

Luther sought, like many others in that period, to reform the church and to restore the essential quality of agape, tempered with Justice, that Jesus himself espoused. The Roman Church shares a trait in common with extremist cults in that they see themselves as the only one true expression of Christian faith. His response to this controlling, possessive attitude was to 'balance' their excesses with hyperbole of his own.

A component of Salvation that is often overlooked is the question of repentance. Repentance is a word rich in imagery but ill defined among most believers. The common understanding of the word repent is regretting what you've done. This is a necessary prerequisite, but it does not constitute repentance.

Let's look at the Old Testament concept of repentance. In the Old Testament many sins were punished with the death penalty. Capital crimes included murder, rape, adultery, premarital sex, homosexuality, slander of God or abuse of his name and magick. Magick included but was not limited to séances, astrology, numerology, use of psychoactive medications, hypnosis and spell-casting. This was corporately known as Sorcery or witchcraft depending on the level of formal training the offender had. For instance, formal training in the use of psychoactive or antidepressant herbs and hypnosis was known as Sorcery. The use of tarot cards by an untrained individual was witchcraft. Either was an equally capital crime.

However, what many forget is that most of the sins and crimes listed in the Bible are not Capital crimes. They require a blood sacrifice by and large but the death of an animal, at no small expense to the offender, was sufficient to remedy the situation and put the offender back in good relation with God and the community. The animal would be killed then cooked over an open fire. The cooked meat would then be consumed in order to establish some small connection between the penitent and the death of the sacrifice. Humorous as it may be, this was based on the concept of "you are what you eat."

Among these lesser crimes, there are a whole class of crimes that involve making restitution. In the spiritual sense, the death of the offender or of the sacrifice or both is intended as a restitution. This is a simple and direct form of justice. When you deprive the community of peace and safety, a dramatic gesture is invoked both to appease the community and to give the offender an emotional point of demarcation; a starting point for a fresh start. The drama of the sacrifice is a sound sensible means to reintegrate the offender into the society as well as help him to restore his own equilibrium and moral integrity. There is a tangible conection to the fact he has PAID his debt and is now debt free in regards to the crime he had committed.

God benefits from the sacrifice as well. While it is clear he has no need of the protein (that's why the meat of a sacrifice was consumed by the priests and the penitent if it wasn't burned to ash), he also benefits from the clear point of demarcation. The emotional component of the blood sacrifice and the clear ritualization gives him a means to immanently affect the heart and soul of the penitent restoring a spiritual bond and a two way channel for communication.

This is why the death of Christ was used as a sacrifice. Directing us to view the death as a sacrifice gives the Holy Spirit a 'hook' to begin working out a point of demarcation where we, as New Testament penitents, benefit from the same emotional and spiritual communication that the prophets of old held. It gives us a clear starting point and the means to say, our debt is PAID, regarding sin I no longer owe.

What we find in the Old Covenant is that in some cases the sacrifice is not enough. Even though the sacrifice has been performed, in cases where other human beings have experienced loss due to our offenses, we are required to not only make sacrifice in order to provide a moment of repentance, but we are also required to pay a restitution to the victim of our crime.

In the case of premarital sex, the couple is required to marry and can never divorce for any reason whatsoever. By 'stealing' the virginity of the other party from the family and the community, the only answer is to provide a structure where no future spouse is cheated of that innocent first contact. In fact, God felt that this principle was so important that one of the appearances of the Angel of the Lord that are held in such high regard is in the context of forcing a man to make restitution for an attempted adultery.

From there Abraham journeyed toward the region of the Negeb, and settled between Kadesh and Shur. While residing in Gerar as an alien,

Abraham said of his wife Sarah, "She is my sister." And King Abimelech of Gerar sent and took Sarah.

But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "You are about to die because of the woman whom you have taken; for she is a married woman."

Now Abimelech had not approached her; so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent people?

Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said, 'He is my brother.' I did this in the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands."

Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart; furthermore it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.

Now then, return the man's wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all that are yours." Genesis 20:1 - 7

Abimelech was not even guilty of the act, since God had intervened to make him impotent. But he used the strongest of threats and ordered that Sarah be returned to Abraham. Typically a king would have been within his legal prerogatives to seize an attractive unmarried woman from her brother and make her his concubine or consort. But Abimelech had not gotten that far, so technically he was still innocent. Never the less, God threatens him with the extermination of him and his entire family.

But there are many other sins and crimes that required restitution.

In the case of the theft of an animal the thief must repay five times the value of the theft or return the original animal unharmed and pay a penalty of the full value of the animal in addition. Now if the thief has killed the animal and cannot afford to make restitution, his own life was forfeit in that he could be sold into slavery for the cost of the animals in question. Now, I believe that slavery is reprehensible, but the principle is that the thief's entire existence is to be consumed by the task of making restitution. The type of slavery in question only lasted 7 years and was analogous to being imprisoned in an American "Work Farm" penitentiary.

When someone steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, the thief shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. The thief shall make restitution, but if unable to do so, shall be sold for the theft.

When the animal, whether ox or donkey or sheep, is found alive in the thief's possession, the thief shall pay double. Exodus 22:1, 4

When the theft was of the use of someone else's intangible possession, such as grazing or mineral rights or the use of a field. The penalty was to turn over an equal measure of the highest grade of same substance to the victim, at the expense of the offender.

When someone causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over, or lets livestock loose to graze in someone else's field, restitution shall be made from the best in the owner's field or vineyard. Exodus 22:5

If the loss was due to arson or vandalism and involved inanimate goods that had not yet been sold, or raw materials, then the thief/arson/ was required to restore the full value of the loss.

When fire breaks out and catches in thorns so that the stacked grain or the standing grain or the field is consumed, the one who started the fire shall make full restitution. Exodus 22:6

As some are want, someone will pipe up and say, 'that was the law it doesn't apply to believers today.'

I will deal with the issue of legalism versus accountability in another musing. But for this context, let's just suffice it to say that the New Testament validates the Old by saying 'all scripture is God breathed and valuable for teaching and correction'. And Jesus himself said, 'I have not come to destroy the Law but to [validate] it'. What's more we have examples of this principle at work in the ministry of Jesus and of the Apostles.

Zacchaeus showed us a perfect image of the thief who has come to genuine repentance.

And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.

And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

And Jesus said unto him, this day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.

For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. Luke 19:7-10

What we see here is a man who Jesus knew the Holy Spirit was dealing with. Zacchaeus was a Roman tax collector and like all of his ilk lined his own pockets at the expense of the innocent Jewish population. When he was called by Jesus, he immediately repented and we see that he intuited the need for restitution. Without prompting he immediately knew he had to repay what he had stolen. Jesus acknowledges this act of contrition and seals it as a formula when he says, "this day salvation has come to the house of Zacchaeus," then goes on to affirm that this is the very reason for his incarnation.

Zacchaeus' impulse toward restitution was a component of his genuine repentance. If he had held back and said, Lord I believe and since I'm a wealthy man I can do great philanthropy in your name, he would have missed the mark. He realized that by continuing to benefit from the things he had taken and by continuing to deprive his victims of those things he would have been holding onto his former life. He would have shown grief for his past, but not a change that in the substance of repentance. As Paul said in 2 Corinthians, 'godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death.'

Esau regretted his choice to sell his father's blessing. He condemned himself and his whole line to be the second class children of prophecy. The things that would have accrued to Jacob; a life in the desert, Service to his brother, etc; became Esau's lot.

This grief without repentance is summed up by the writer of Hebrews:

See to it that no one becomes like Esau, an immoral and godless person, who sold his birthright for a single meal.

You know that later, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, even though he sought the blessing with tears.

You have not come to something that can be touched, a blazing fire, and darkness, and gloom, and a tempest,

and the sound of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that not another word be spoken to them. Hebrews 12:16  - 19

Jesus told us 'Thieves must give up stealing; rather let them labor and work honestly with their own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy.' (Ephesians 4:28).

He also said,

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

"You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not murder'; and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.'

But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire.

So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you,

leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift.

Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.

Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.' Matthew 5:20 - 26

Paul tells us,

To the married I give this command-not I but the Lord-that the wife should not separate from her husband

(but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say-I and not the Lord-that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.

For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 1Corinthians 7:10 ' 14

This principle of restitution, of not depriving others even though were are reconciled to Christ; of making our bodies a living sacrifice in order to promote the peace and good order of the Body; this is the very heart of the New Testament. Without a lifelong commitment to restitution of that which we had deprived others, we cannot be said to have truly repented. We've only shown grief, and perhaps allowed God to begin a work in us, be we haven't shown the total devotion that leads to conformation in the image of Christ.

Christ gave his life for those who were strangers and enemies. Can we honestly say that we are truly following him if we choose to retain the fruit of our theft, vandalism, abuse or marital infidelity? Repentance is a sacrifice; a lifelong change in direction. There is no easy comfortable alternative. In order to partake of the heavenly gift of God we must restore that which we have taken to those who we have taken it from. God has given us the supernatural power to be his sons and daughters.

Some believe that by merely naming the things that they want they can compel God to provide those things, yet these same teachers often say that there is no need to live a Holy life. They teach that one can simply move on and leave their sin behind, without a second thought and without any responsibility to make amends. Can we truly have faith in his character and his power if we falter at the task of repentance? If you pray for his help and guidance God will faithfully show you the method of genuine repentance.

Join me in the pursuit of genuine repentance. Pray with me for the repentance of our nation. Let the spirit of the living God change your heart and transform you into a new creation.

God bless you and keep you in pursuit of his righteousness,

Fred

Pepsi'  Spirit

November 2004

During the period that the media called the Cola Wars, two major US manufacturers seemed bent on securing a market share that included 100% of the population of Earth. Sentimental jingles, cultural icons, lasting tag lines were just some of the detritus that precipitated from this 'war'. Among these were the red and white suit that Santa Claus now wears, a song about Jesus where he is referred to as 'the real thing', a new title for generation 'X' and 'the Pepsi' Spirit'.

In order to promote this soft drink as 'the choice of a new generation', a generation that advertising told us was a 'Pepsi' generation', major motion picture stars and music artists were paid enormous sums to deliver heart rending appeals and sing songs designed to stir emotion and create a sense of identity and loyalty. This excess of emotion and devotion to a product was termed by the manufacturer as a 'spirit'. Americans by and large felt comfortable with that term and the rest is advertising history. This spirit generated by large sums of money was sufficient to motivate one artist so thoroughly that he became a casualty when his hair caught on fire. That raises the stakes high enough that perhaps it isn't such a great stretch to call it a war.

War or not, in terms of consumerism, in terms of the battle for the hearts and minds on men, it was indeed a war. This was not a war between manufacturers of fizzy soft drinks, but between that spirit that motivates the carnal mind of man, and the spirit of the living God.

Now what I find most troubling is that America, which was founded mostly by Christians and where the vast majority claim a Christian heritage, was willing to accept the definition of spirit as a mind set comprised of emotion, belief and loyalty. This is the humanistic, debased state that Biblical and religious education has fallen to.

In Genesis 1 we see that the Ruach `Elohyim hovered like a raptor over the face of the waters. And through this agency the solid land was divided from the seas and the clouds. This picture of hovering as on the wings of an eagle is of course a metaphor. The metaphors go even deeper. The word Ruach which we commonly translate as Spirit throughout the Old Testament is the word for wind or breath. If in English someone fell and began having spasms that made it hard for him to breath, we would say he got the wind knocked out of him. When someone is too talkative it was common to say he was windy. This metaphor is not lost on the educated mind.

The Holy Spirit we so glibly refer to is known in Hebrew as the Ruach, or breath, of God. This is the metaphor for the Holy Spirit. What we see this breath accomplishing is a physical feat, namely the fine tuning of the work of creation. In Genesis two, God speaks the Earth into existence; the Breath of God turns mud into dry land and large bodies of water; God shapes the physical body of man; but it is the breath of God that enters him and gives him life.

This relationship didn't escape the writer of Ecclesiastes who wrote, 'and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.' (12:7) He wrote this passage is in the greater context of explaining how vain living really is. To paraphrase, 'the flesh rots, and God reclaims his life giving spirit so what remains of man?' The writer is posing a question and trying to demonstrate a point that is beyond the scope of this writing, but what he alludes to in order to prove his point. What he takes for granted that the wise student will grasp, is that the life force of a man is not his own. Nor is it his personality or emotions. Rather it is a gift from god at least partly distinct from Mans personal existence. All men possess this gift, whether they choose to serve God or oppose him.

But these and other passages of Scripture show us that the ruach `elohyim is the immanent presence of God, working physical effect on the plenum of time and space. Rather than distant and unreachable, his presence is as near as your next breath. He is also not merely an emotional response to stimulus. Emotion didn't effect geologic events and emotion doesn't cause your heart to beat, and your cells to respire instead of remaining complicated chains of inert organic molecules.

A spirit is a life-force, a source of unconscious higher motives, a preconscious intellect, powerful physical force, comforter or tormentor of the conscious mind, a messenger, and the standing invitation by God for you to reform and serve him.

All spirits originate with God, but some oppose him. Those spirits which we refer to as unclean or evil or demonic or anti-Christ not only oppose God, but exist in a perpetual state of rage against humanity. Their primary motivation in existence is the destruction of your relationship with God. It would be foolish to say that we need an evil spirit to guide and inspire every mistake and rebellion. The Bible tells us that when Adam sinned in the garden he tainted the very spirit that is the natural life force of humanity. Being human is cause enough for disobedience and rebellion against God. You are born with the talent and in this issue we all end live up to our potential.

Becoming a 'child of God' in the spiritual sense which the Bible proposes, is a metaphor for the regeneration of renewal of the human spirit, by the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. We in the Christian world like to say, Jesus comes to live in your heart. This is a metaphor, for the Ruach `Elohyim condescending to directly communicate on a preconscious level with your spirit. He directly affects change in your life force, cleansing the effects of sin and rebellion from the human spirit within you and begins a relationship of personal interaction with you through this spirit.

Next time you are in church and begin to feel emotionally uplifted, look beyond the emotion into the quiet recesses of your mind. Learn to recognize that nonverbal communication between the Spirit of God and your conscious mind that can only occur when you open yourself to him in praise and worship. Listen with your heart and not your ears. Learn to distinguish between the emotion and the motivator. Therein lays the essence of true communion.

I have been just as thoroughly aware of that self same spirit while the cantors sing the evening prayers. It is just as awesome and real as when the congregation in a Pentecostal church begins to praise and worship God in unison. God inhabits the praises of his people. Let him in. As Jesus put it, let him have supper with you.

Pepsi is a trademark of PepsiCo INC.

Snake Handlers

October 2004

I once observed ironically, that it seems that the business of sociology is to define metrics and statistics for scientifically supporting racism and ethnic or religious discrimination. National Geographic has never had a reputation for scientific rigor. Between exploitative photos of African and South American tribes, that seem to be more titillation than observation, and Articles that gloss over and distort the facts, they have provided colorful and fabulous entertainment for the long wait in a doctor's office or reception area. What they often lack is factual, balanced and peer reviewed study of their subjects. This lack of scholarship has translated into their cable television network.

Several years ago they were invited into a small independent church that claimed to be Pentecostal. This church was a heterodox cult, engaged in practices that do not resemble classical Pentecost in any way. They drink toxic mixtures and handle venomous animals as a part of their normal religious practice. They, like many splinter groups over the years, fell out of the mainstream Restorationist movement because of fatigue or desire for personal power. The reality is that there is no connection between them and other Pentecostals. However, National Geographic has gotten a great deal of mileage out of reusing and recutting this same piece of footage into every exploration of pagan demonic practices they can. They then attempt to somehow imply, without directly making slanderous statements for which they could be held accountable. Instead they have introduced a made up term, Pentecostalism in an attempt to redefine the movement as an aspect of these relatively tiny splinter groups who are not recognized by Pentecostals as being authentic.

Today I witnessed a program where, this tiny backwoods church in Virginia was depicted as normative for Pentecostals, then a few seconds of a larger more characteristic Denominational Pentecostal church was cut in, and an interview with a member of the lager church was cut in after that. While no direct statement was made to this effect, there was a clear attempt by the makers of the film to use backmasking to link the comments of the inexperienced and uneducated member of the mainstream Pentecostal church with the tiny, heterodox cult from Virginia.

In one of my course in college, I did a study of backmasking.  Backmasking is a technique where an image or piece of video or a sound bite, is cut into a video or audio stream, in such a way that it masks the shorter and less vibrant item which precedes it. The result is that a viewer or listener tends to blur the two items into a single whole and when this data is recalled later a new meaning and sequence of events is brought to mind. The victim of this manipulation doesn't remember what was actually broadcast; instead the morphed sequence is stored as a piece of learning.

The point of this exercise is to be able to tell people, libelous or slanderous lies, without leaving a clearly actionable piece of evidence. It's for this reason that in the past, theaters and other media were prohibited from using back masking techniques to manipulate the consumer.

A classic example is the theatre chain that flashed images of food and drink that was offered by the concession stand in the lobby, during the movie or during the previews. The relatively small period of time that these images appeared at any one instant caused the continuation of the movie to back mask these images. When the frequency of the flashed images became high enough, millions of theater goers were manipulated into buying overpriced popcorn and colas that they would not have otherwise wanted or purchased.

The reason this is a critical issue, is that the network in question is played across the globe. These small programs take on the character of sociological, headline News for many millions of viewers. The intentional misportrayal of Pentecostals amounts to nothing less that a pogrom of religious persecution against Pentecostals on a global scale.

Persecution of the Church, especially the church on the move and successful, is no new thing. Over the last 2000 years, Christians have been the victims of persecution and injustice, more often than not. But it is not something we should passively allow to go unanswered. Pray for guidance, Read your Bible, and realize that fighting against the persecution is not wrestling with flesh and blood. Instead battling this anti-Christian movement is nothing less than your duty. Pickup the mantle, allow the spirit of prophecy to motivate you, shake off the snake and let it be burned in the campfire. If you are committed and don't dither, it will not harm you (ACT 28:3-6).

First to the Jew

September 2004

A number of denominations and religions that rose out of the Restorationist movement have taken a stance on Judaism that is both heterodox and Anti-Semitic. Anti Semitism is a dangerous position for anyone who claims to be a Christian, not only because Jesus was a Jew, but because 2/3rds of the Christian Canon is composed of the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible. Some go so far as to say that Christians, or at least their own sect, have become the new Israel and have replaced the hereditary Jews as the recipients of promises and blessings given to Abraham and the prophets. Paul tells us a very different story in Romans, and there are references that prove that authentic Biblical Judaism, which takes an honest look at the apocalypses of Daniel and Zechariah, and which looks forward to the coming of messiah, was essentially a saving faith in Christ (ROM 11:17-36).

That may sound odd, except that we have this passage in Galatians (Gal 3:6-9) where it is made clear that God revealed to Abraham that a messiah would come from his descendents who would save even the Gentiles. Abraham's faith in the coming of that messiah and his faith in the Character of God to keep his promises saved Abraham as surely as any penitent kneeling at the prayer bench, confessing and asking to be made a Christian. What's more Paul shows us that it is belief and not rigid observance that links the descendents of Abraham. This doesn't precipitate a replacement of the Jewish people but rather an enormous expansion of their ranks.

I'm reminded of a conversation I had in a chicken take away restaurant, recently. This store uses a technique of dry roasting which heats the chicken with hot air. The extreme temperature causes the juices and fat to boil and drip away, leaving behind a heart healthy variation on Southern Fried Chicken. Another patron was complaining about the long wait for service. I made a lame attempt at dry humor, which seemed fitting given the food in question, 'this way you don't have to eat the smutz.'

My companion took this as some sort of religious or racial comment and responded, 'so ... you are Jewish.' He paused for overly melodramatic emphasis then said 'too?' It was an odd manner of speech and took me aback for a moment.  Many Yiddish words have entered into the common vernacular of America pop-culture. This is only a natural consequence of the ethnic development of America. More than one fifth of the population has a Jewish heritage. The use of the word smutz (aka smaltz), which refers to congealed chicken fat, was no particular reference to the Jewishness of my companion or of myself.

In that vein I spoke cautiously as I answered, 'I have the heritage but not the religion.'

Since that conversation with Bob, I have had time to mull over my response, even rehearse some alternative and more provocative answers. The fact is, a Jew from a traditional synagogue -- whether Sephardic, Hassidic or Reform -- would not recognize me as a Jew. With my Teutonic good looks (see the ironic grin when I say that) I've been treated like a jack-booted Nazi by my fellow children of Israel. But as a youth in High-School I have faced the swastika toting neo-Nazi skinheads who called me Jew-Boy and worse. I've been assaulted for my genetic heritage which for some 'anti-Semites' seems to be written across my features as clearly as the tattoo on the arm of those inmates who survived Auswiczm, Berkenau, Dachau even Belsen.

So, while my answer was honest, the true answer is much more complicated. Am I a Jew? In addition to the political and cultural issues, there is this Jesus, who Paul persecuted and whom I serve. His own testimony was that he did not come to destroy the law but fulfill it. Many readers have chosen to remap the term fulfill into a special term that means, 'complete and therefore conclude.' This is not honest scholarship. When those same parties are confronted by the phrase, 'to fulfill one's potential' or 'fulfill your expectations' or even 'fulfill the high calling' they suddenly see the same construction as meaning complete or exceed and therefore validate. The fulfillment validates the structure or rule that is referred to.

In fulfilling the law, Jesus validated every precept, doctrine and commandment contained therein. He did not do away with the law. In fact, we never see him arguing that a Pharisee or Sadducee should reject the law in order to follow him. Instead, he encourages his critics and followers to set aside the Talmud and the proverbial 'fence' around the law because the roles have become unreasonably harsh, and even contradictory to the written Law and Prophets. He encouraged them to embrace the unfiltered Torah with the unfettered mind of a child and internalize or hide it in their hearts. This doesn't sound like a messiah who has come to lead Israel away from Judaism, but to fulfill it.

Jesus taught a brand or sect of Judaism that was more observant and more mystic, but centered squarely on the Tanakh or Old Covenant. This new Judaism rejected the traditions of men and the musings of philosophers, the magick of the five rabbis (qabbala), and the nihilism of the Sadducees. At the same time, it embraced the critical methods and the relationship with God described in the Midrash.

So how does a Christian reconcile this with Peter's agreement with Paul that new converts of gentile heritage not be required to keep kosher or even be circumcised? How can these men be teaching the same faith Jesus taught, yet reject the most essential tenets of the religion Jesus practiced? Paul even goes so far as to castigate Jewish believers who have left behind the kosher rule as a part of Christian faith, but then returned to the traditional teachings and practices of the Sephardim. Why would returning to a practice of our Lord and savior be so bad? Wouldn't it honor him to walk like him? The answer is fairly simple. Yes, it would and does honor Jesus to walk like him and to live the faith and practice that he demonstrated in his short life. And no, it would not honor him to do so by using a rule book constructed from the Torah and the prophets! What honors Jesus is to have sufficient faith in him and his teachings that these rules become a part of our being, through the supernatural activity of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus taught that the spirit of the Law, the underlying rationale and purpose, must become so much a part of the Christian that the technical wording and possible loop-holes are irrelevant.  He taught that by possessing the Spirit of God (ruach elohim) bodily, one would necessarily and habitually live and walk the way he did and perform miracles and signs, where such are needed and will not glorify the individual rather than God. Jesus informed us that these future generations would even exceed his own miraculous ministry.  It is unlikely that he meant we would be wizards of God-like power as certain televangelists claim or try to demonstrate. 

But through humility and faithful servitude to the God of the Bible, we can all perform the miracle of obedience to the tenets and precepts of the Law and the prophets.  And in addition come to understand His character and plan of God for humanity.

The greatest miracle of all is to sing:

Jesus is my savior, I shall not be moved.

In his love and favour, I shall not be moved.

Just like a tree that's planted by the waters,

Lord, I shall not be moved.

but for that song to be true and factual by virtue of one's grace, peace, charismata, will and fortitude.  Not to be implacable or stoic, but rather to be soft hearted, emotional and immutably trenchant.  This is the miracle of God's grace that one can be stubbornly committed and unshakably intransigent on matters of authentic Biblical faith and practice.  Even, as in Rome authentic Believers are thrown to the lions for their belief.

But the question was 'Am I a Jew'?  I believe that the Torah and the prophets and even the writings are the word of God (Dabar Adonai) and that they are the infallible rule of faith and practice.  That my early ancestor Abraham was an anointed prophet founding a race of prophets and priests through which God works immanently in human history.  I believe that in some miraculous way Jesus is the child of the god Abraham served and that Abraham looked forward to the coming of a child from his own offspring who would bring a means of reconciliation between God and man.  I believe that the Apostles, including Paul, were prophets of a new Covenant sealed by the blood of Jesus and allowing all people Hebrew and Gentile to become one people natural and adopted; children of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

I am a Jew and a follower of the way that was taught by Christ Jesus.  I am therefore a Christian, a messianic Jew, because if not a Child of Abraham by faith (GAL 3:7) one cannot be a Christian.

A Bitter Cup

July 2004 <continued>

Jesus asked the Father, 'If it be your will, let this cup pass from me.' Flowery language from a loving disciple. In modern vernacular we would likely report his prayer as, 'Oh God! I don't want to die like this. If there is anyway way else to do it or someone to take my place, please let it be that way. But if it HAS to go down like this, then I'll do it, because you want me to.' People have a way of over poeticizing the humanity of Christ, or any historic figure for that matter. It's natural to do so, but it causes us to lose sight of the real pain and suffering that happen in the life of God's people.

In today's climate of enforced ecumenicism, which flies in the face of God's word and spits on Christ's wounds, there is a move toward the stoicism, and nihilism of eastern religion. Nothing is more antithetical to Biblical Christianity, or to faith in God. The patriarchs were men of passion and desire. Jesus was a man who we know could lose his temper and even become violent. Throughout the Bible, prophecy is often couched in graphic language and bitter insults. The sanitized, magical rites and formulae, of eastern mysticism and western 'High Church' liturgy are at odds with Biblical imperative and example.

Far from Stoic, the prophets of both Covenants are men who confessed their pains and suffering and asked others to bear with them, just as they bore the pains of others. This is in fact the foundational concept of Godly faith. Bear one another's burdens. Confess your shortcomings. Ask for help.

Recently I was discussing a practical application of this principle with a cousin of mine. She is married to a former youth pastor, and has been active in the church for most of her life. I told her about a man whose wife had committed adultery with a minister who then advised her as a counselor to leave her husband. I pointed out that The biblical principals in Ephesians and Corinthians clearly indicate that it is the responsibility of the church to censure that woman until she returns to and makes amends with her husband. I pointed out that Jesus said that it was the life spent in a second or third marriage that was the adultery not the wedding ceremony, and that to end her sin she must reconcile with her husband or remain celibate at her first husband's discretion.

It infuriated my cousin that I would make these statements. When I suggested that repentance is not saying you are sorry, but changing your life course permanently and spending your remaining life making amends for your wrongdoing, she called me bitter. What is really sad is that she went so far as to say I had a 'spirit of bitterness'.

Now I assure you, I have been slandered quite a bit, since I entered the ministry. But it always troubles me when someone begins criticizing my spirit. I am filled with the spirit of prophecy, the ruach elohim (רוח אלהים) that we Christians call the Holy Spirit. I am led by him and he has called me to ministry, including compassion ministries. But at minimum I am a Christian, which even my detractors would be forced to acknowledge. To claim that the spirit in me, the Holy Spirit, is a 'spirit of bitterness' is to at least approach the act of slandering the Holy Spirit.

I will not deny that the Holy Spirit at times is infused with anger or revulsion, at what he, as paraclete, is forced to encounter. But to call him a Spirit of Bitterness is walking close to the line of calling him a demonic spirit. For this there is of course no redemption. As Jesus said, if you slander the human it can be forgiven, but because 'you have blasphemed the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven' It is impossible that a believer can be possessed of an unclean spirit. 'No well can give forth both salt water and sweet.' This is Jesus' expert opinion on the subject. To disagree is to call to question the deity of Christ. To deny the deity, and for that matter, the infallibility of Christ is to be denied BY Christ. 'If you deny me before men, I shall deny you before the Father.'

Now the tide of that conversation ended up drifting to the issue of redemption and what saves. Essentially, the only thing that saves is of course the forgiveness of our sins, by the Father in heaven. Where people, Jewish, Christian, Muslim or other Bible based pagan, differ is in how one achieves or receives forgiveness.

For the Christian or Messianic Jew the answer is the perfect sacrifice embodied in the person of Jesus. But there are arguments as to the manner in which one takes a vicarious part in Jesus' sacrifice.

As in all things, most tend to proof text, fastening onto one or two passages or verses taken out of context in order to prove a position formed before they began to study the scripture. This sort of Eisegesis has lead to the formation of most of the Christian denominations. However taken in toto the bible paints a picture that denies most every formulae or paradigm.

Jesus and the Apostles he taught can be resolved into the following paradigm if ALL the New Testament is taken in and digested before an opinion is formed:

Salvation

1)      Show remorse for your past life. Recognize the depraved state of your soul as an illness that needs a cure.

2)      Accept on faith that Jesus is the son of God and that his words, works and teachings are infallible. Accept his teaching that his death is a propitiation for your past life of sin and will empower you to live a Godly life.

3)      Change the course of your life permanently so that those things which were disobedient to Biblical Morality are no longer a part of your life. Dedicate your life to correcting the wrong you have done (i.e. thieves become philanthropists, killers become defenders of life, home wreckers and adulterers become those who mend marriages starting with their own, etc).

4)      Seek an ever more profound relationship with God that grows deeper passing through stages until it surpasses the recorded instructions of the Apostles and develops a momentum that carries you through your entire life.

Most Church in the evangelical community focus on steps 1 and 2 completely ignoring 3 and 4. Most in the Catholic community seek to achieve Steps 3 and 4 without performing the prerequisite steps. The result in either case is disastrous. The latter leads to seed that is sown on stony ground, the former leads to seed sown on thorny (fallow) soil.

I've heard the term cheap grace bandied about, the idea is to illustrate that grace needs to be respected and not taken for granted. Most often it is the Catholic community criticizing the process of handing out Church membership to anyone who recites a prayer of salvation, followed by nothing more than the warning that if you disobey you can always ask daddy Jesus to forgive you and the worst that can happen is that you will have some hardship to try and correct your behavior if you are unrepentant.

The term thrown about by the Evangelical community is Works Righteousness. They equate repentance with trying to earn salvation. They point out polemically that you can't earn your salvation so any works are meaningless.  James of course dealt decisively with that fallacy.

Where the Romans pass out freedom from responsibility as long as you perform a penance assigned by the priest, the Evangelical passes out freedom from responsibility without any requirement, except that you quash the niggling doubt produced by your conscience trying to tell you that you have sinned. In either case no real change in course is made and people go on quenching the Holy Spirit and offending the son of God, calling him to public shame.

Of course there is forgiveness of sin after we have become Christians, but it is not achieved by merely reciting a canned prayer of remorse, nor by performing a feat in honor of God.

It is achieved by honestly approaching the Father and confessing our faults, by faith using the power granted to us by the Holy Spirit to not sin and thereby not continuing to perform the sinful acts of which the Holy Spirit has thus far convicted us. And by making amends to those we have wronged.

Someone said once that that statement should be amended to say, 'if you can'. The supernatural power of the Holy Spirit has been granted to you as a believer to act in prophetic ways, to resist sin and to repent. If you believe that Faith can bring healing and faith can bring prosperity, but you don't believe Faith can empower you to make amends to those you have harmed by your sin, you are a Pagan. You do not define faith as trusting in the power and character of God to make possible what he has required of you.

A License to Preach

July 2004

In my last installment I referred to relationship between the constitution and the government of the United States as that between a Bible and the faithful of a religious order. Part of that was intended to illustrate the parallels between the Will of the People and the Will of the Lord. Like the constitution the Bible is the written or codified Will of God. People have for a great while been questioning how to know the will of God on various important issues, but seem to be adrift in a sea of confusion regarding how to find out that will. But that is the very reason we were given the Bible. The bible is a living dynamic code for living and for developing doctrines whereby one can be assured of Godliness. If you follow not merely the specific rules and regulations contained in the Bible but internalize the principals and intentions of those laws, you will naturally be in the will of God. Finding God's will on most subjects is merely a matter of honestly reading the word, and not rebelling against the parts that you find too hard to accept. When you recognize God's authority by becoming compliant, and obedient to the authority of God, instead of using the Bible to find loopholes to make your sins or adulteries acceptable, you will find you know the heart and mind of God not just his will.

Does this mean you can always find God's will in the Bible? No, there are some extreme circumstances where you cannot, simply because they are extreme. For those situations, you must have been filled with the spirit in the Pentecostal Fire Baptism, because it is the process whereby the heart and mind of the Pentecostal is directly informed by the Spirit of God by which you find those answers. Someone who is not initiate might say, 'Well God may tell that one thing and this other one something else. After all it's all subjective.' No it isn't subjective at all. When the will of God and his prophetic utterances are being made, it is purely and objective experience. The speaker is lead to speak, but in a Pentecostal Congregation there will be others who are spirit filled. When God speaks they all know, and they all are witness to the truth or falsity of the prophecy. In addition, a true prophecy is never in contradiction to the body of the cannon. It may provide answers to a specific circumstance that was not codified in the cannon, by God is self consistent and prophetic utterance will agree with the principals of the cannon.

Secondly, when an individual is seeking God's will for that individual's role in a difficult circumstance, that individual is the one God is most like to inform. What God conveys to that individual will be different than what he conveys to another, because they are not the same person and they have different lives to lead. However, when it is truly God speaking, it will be consistent with Biblical principle, and Spirit Filled believers will usually recognize the character of the communication.

Now in the last musing I pointed out that the only license and mandate that the US government has to exist or operate is the codified will of the people in the written Constitution. This is paralleled in the church by the fact that the only license or mandate that a religious institution can rely on, or ultimately needs to have, is the written Will of God in the Bible. When a Church or other Christian Religious organization argues against Biblical imperative, or Biblical Authority, such and organization has rejected the only license that they have. In the software world there is a large body of software called 'Open Source Software' or 'Free Software'. The core of all this freedom is the Gnu Public License (GPL) which protects the authorship of the software while making the source freely available to the public. It doesn't necessarily mean free of charge. I bring this up because a key passage in that document states, 'You are not required to accept the terms of this license, but apart from it you have no other right to use or possess the software.' That applies here because similarly if you reject the constitution, you have no other right to govern; make laws or enforce them, and if you reject the Bible, you have no other authority to govern the church; make doctrines and bylaws within it; or enforce inclusion or exclusion of members or other clergy. One immutable tenet of the Bible is that there is no other name under heaven [than Jesus], where by men might be saved. Reject that, state that all roads lead to God, preach universal salvation and ecumenicism that bridges the boundaries between biblical faith and world religions, and you have rejected the only mandate that might lend authority to you and to your organization. Make no mistake; God will deal with those who mock his word or his Spirit.

It Might Seem Odd

July 2004 <continued>

Recently the flurry in the public sector and the media has become a real snow job. As a result many of the traditional roles of clergy and church organizations have become obfuscated. It might seem odd for a Messianic Jewish or Christian institution such as WEAP to make statements about Civil or criminal law in the United States. It might seem odd to quote from legal documents such as the United States Constitution. But it shouldn't. The United States was formed by Religious individuals who sought a place to build a better life than was possible under the remnants of European Colonialism and Feudal, totalitarian traditions. Many of the residents of the early colonies were there, initially, to escape persecution under State established Roman Catholic, or Anglican, or Protestant Churches that violated their deeply held beliefs. Whenever this nation has since engaged in a shameful behavior it has been built on the foundation of religious dogma or anti religious (religious free zone) propaganda. Whatever we have done that is noble, good and resides in history as a 'shinning moment' has always been precipitated by the grass-roots move of Christian people.

When Pennsylvania allowed Roman Catholics to escape execution by the Presbyterian Pilgrims in New England, it was the Quaker beliefs of the Pennsylvania Colonists that motivated the compassionate movement. When the Methodist movement built the underground railway and brought the Abolitionist movement to a crisis point it was their deeply held Christian Faith that sustained them and empowered them. And when the United States finally Entered World Wars I and II it was largely in response to the religious conviction that Totalitarian regimes that attempt to Conquer Europe and persecute, or prosecute the Jews, remain our responsibility to eliminate. It was Christian Faith and the recognition of the spirit of Anti-Christ in the person of Hitler that prompted this intervention.

Why then are we afraid to speak out and to affect change now? It is the Biblical imperative that we be compelling in proselytizing the world, That we 'be bold' and 'strong' for the Lord our God is with us, and to 'go out into the [public and dangerous places] and compel' those we find there to come to our way of faith. Further it is our heritage and legacy to take countries that oppose our beliefs and convert them so that they cease to be antagonistic. How is it that in the United States we have allowed a Satanically inspired doctrine of false egalitarianism to persuade us to stand idly by and take away our God given and Constitutionally guaranteed Right to be and to persuade others to follow?

The first question is do we in fact have those rights under the constitution? The following are Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America:

ARTICLE [I.]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article I makes the doctrine of a Religious Free Zone a ludicrous farce. Since religious opinion is an essential part of the make-up of the psyche of every human, it is ludicrous on the basis of practicality. But, beyond that, The Constitution forbids the establishment of Laws governing religion. Some so called scholars have argued that it is forbidding the establishment of a particular national religion. That is not so. The article doesn't say congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a national religion. It says, 'Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion.' A modern 21st century writer would have said the same sentence as follows:

Congress shall make no law regarding religious establishments.

If you doubt my reading of the passage, simply take it in its natural context and look at the second clause in the sentence. 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' powerful words. If you use Standard English construction to make this clause more readable it says, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religious establishments. In other words the Constitution -- which is the Bible of the US legislature, Courts and Executive Branch ' says it is illegal for the legislature to make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Taken in conjunction with the first clause (as it was written), it make laws regarding what are acceptable religions and therefore free to exercise, illegal abuses of power. Further, gag laws designed to make it illegal for a Church or other religious institution to maintain its tax-free status, while engaging in social and political activism are equally illegal. To further enforce the illegality of such laws it says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. What that means is simple. No one has the legal authority, even if they have the power, to tell you that you can't publicly announce your feelings on any subject or regarding any person on the basis that your words are 'hate, sedition, destructive, delusional, or otherwise socially, personally or politically objectionable.'

 What's more, one of the primary motivators in the Revolution against British tyranny over the United States, was the premise that those in power and governance were above the law and that any speech designed to incite people to act to remove the authority or the power of that person was a violation of the law and punishable by imprisonment or worse. The sedition acts passed in parliament were a sort of straw that broke the camel's back. Many, who would otherwise have been complacent under British rule and taxation without redress of grievances against the monarchy that imposed those taxes, saw that this measure was intolerable to a free people. The central theme in the creation of the United States was that of the freedom to be, and say what you like, without threat from the Judiciary, tax collectors or enforcement officers.

The following three amendments further guarantee the protection of the people from the establishment of norms or prejudice whereby a group or individual can be kept from expressing his or they're personal or religious beliefs even if those beliefs are rightly opposed and reviled by the general population of the community; a community that has the equally guaranteed opportunity to speak out in opposition.

ARTICLE [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

ARTICLE [X.]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

ARTICLE XIV.

SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This clearly makes religion the power and purview of the private citizens of the United States rather than legislators, Jurists or enforcement officers. The history of the Christian church establishes an immutable precedent for involvement in political issues being a basic tenet of the Faith. More importantly we have examples of the Apostle Paul appealing to his civil rights under Roman Law in order to escape unfair prosecution. Still more significant is Jesus command that we be 'Salt and Light' to kill the 'germs and mildew' that build up society. The natural corruption that rises as a result of man's sinful nature affects every aspect of human existence and this includes political, legislative, executive and legal institutions.

But what we have here is a recognition and codification of Machiavelli's precept that, 'those who are governed are governed by the will of the governed.'

Every government ultimately derives it authority from the consent of the people, whether that authority is elicited by fear of retribution or by an enlightened active system of franchise and representation. The Constitution of the United States, takes the latter approach reserving what authority is not vested in the Federal government by that document, or in the States by that document or the constitutions of those states and commonwealths, for the people. The Constitution expressly states that the people retain all authority that they have not specifically delegated. The legislature are not the people, they are a branch of the government. The courts are not the people; they are branches of their respective governments.

The people of the United States are Sovereign. Our government serves us in the way that theoretically the government of Great Britain serves the Monarchy. The difference is that we are a vital and active ruler. The government has power of its own because it has grown so massive and because we have allowed it to do so. But the authority to wield that power is delegated by the people, from the people. The government does not have the legal and legitimate authority to govern or to pass laws that contravene the will of the people. Nor does the Judiciary have the right to set precedents and contravene the constitution or the will of the people. They do have the power because they have linked with the law enforcement agencies, crossing the boundary between branches and eliminating some of the checks and balances that we the people in OUR wisdom chose to establish in order to prevent the abuse of power that we have witnessed in every nation across the globe.

Our Judiciary has obfuscated the law behind legal jargon and polemic until the common citizen has no idea what is being said. They have established precedents and use these as if they themselves are a separate body of law. And, on the basis of these precedents, they contravene the will of the people by 'interpreting' the constitution. The constitution is a simply worded and direct document lacking obscurity or shading. It was written to be accessible to the common man because it is the written will of those common men. It is not a contract; it is a license to exist and to practice, issued to the congress, the president and the Supreme Court by the people of the United States. Aside from the provisions in it there exists no authority to govern, only the power to impose the will of a minority or an individual.

What's more they have endorsed wholesale, a doctrine that religious expression is not inviolate but must be judged, by them, against the precepts of human psychology. Recently a minister from a full gospel church was illegally arrested and tried, for praying for a child to be released from demons. Now the doctrines relating to unclean spiritual beings, fallen from God's grace are never dwelt on in great detail because ideally a man filled with the spirit of God and placed in a position to pray for a demoniac is typically going to have a high success rate. However, during the course of the service the child became violent and died.

Now the death was clearly due to the use of traditional Roman Catholic Exorcism and not Pentecostal Power, but the precedent for exorcism goes back at least to the first century, and was practiced by Jesus and by his disciples. It falls under the 'these works and even greater'' directive given by our Lord. But court TV had the audacity to call an 'expert' commentator to evaluate the trial. We'll give this commentator the pseudonym, Peter Byblow.  Byblow had no expertise in the subject whatsoever. He is a JD and therefore a qualified lawyer, and he is a psychiatrist and therefore a medical doctor and a psychologist. what he is not is 1) a Christian, 2) a person inhabited bodily by the spirit with the exhibition of miraculous gifts and fruit, or 3) a person gifted with discerning of Spirits and healing. He had no basis on which to form an informed opinion on the ethics, practice or qualifications of the minister in question. In addition, his choice to equate the influence of the Holy Spirit ( רוחאלהים ), to a drug or other mind altering ailment that interferes with competency, is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. he committed the same sin that certain of the Sephardim committed when they accused Jesus himself of being Demon Possessed.  They committed the unpardonable sin from which you can never be saved or forgiven. Byblow repeatedly stated that the Minister should plead insanity because 'he was under the influence of God and as a result didn't know right from wrong.' Last time I checked God was the author of the final authority on what is right and what is wrong. If that minister was operating 'under the influence of God' then everything he did was right by definition; end of case lets move on to the next item on the docket.

No, the issue of the ethics and the application of that minister is a purely religious matter and not for the court to hold any authority over. The issues that were ignored in that case were the lethal drugs prescribed by the psychiatrist who was seeing the boy and the truly violent histrionics that the boy was prone to experience. When the mother was asked, how did the boy typically let people know he did not want or like something, the answer was 'by hitting, biting and scratching.' So the courts theory was that the preacher had offended the demon and that because it caused the boy to hit bite and scratch him that he was responsible for the death of that boy and a murderer. I'm sickened by this sort of depraved cynicism, when the victim of violence is held responsible when the attacker dies; but more importantly when a minister is accused of murder because he is praying. This cannot be tolerated.

But a psychiatrist said that religion is being crazy. Doesn't that mean that we don't have the right to practice our religion? Of course not. Psychology is an opposing religion. Psychology dates back to before Jesus time. It was begun in the western world by philosophers who argued as to the nature of the human soul and how that soul creates mental ability in the human. The early arguments all attribute the soul to one form or another of Ancient Greek God. To be blunt they thought the mind was a figment of the mind of Zeus or Apollo or Diana. 'The biblical word soul or Psyche is the basis of the word Psychology. Psychology is the study of the soul. It is no more science than Dianetics or pyramid power.

Psychiatry takes the issue into a whole new arena. We are forbidden in the Bible from practicing sorcery. Everyone says, 'oh yeah got it,' and moves on because we all know that sorcerers are Mickey Mouse wearing a long pointed hat and robe covered in stars and moons, right? Wrong. The biblical word for sorcery is pharmachia, from which we get our modern words Pharmacy, Pharmacist, and pharmaceuticals. Sorcery is the attempt to use herbs or synthetic drugs to alter the mind of man, or soul, and thereby heal or alter reality. A psychiatrist, by using psychoactive (Psyche-Activ ' Soul moving) drugs such as depressants, stimulants, antidepressants and hormones to alter the mental state of patients, even if done for the patient's own good is a religious activity. Further it is one forbidden to Christians and is itself potentially lethal.

'We the People, of the United States of America, in order to '' This is the only mandate by which any agency has authority within the territorial United States. When that is forgotten, we are no better than the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Roman Catholic Spain or any other totalitarian, partisan government. Our history bears this out, in the forced march of my ancestors from Georgia to Oklahoma, in the rape of the Black Hills and in the squalor present on most reservations alleviated only by the creation of tourist traps and casinos.

So how does this affect you? It affects you when they tell you that your children must have a scientific education that is free of religious creation myths, or that they the school have the authority to present a myth that they have approved as an alternative. It affects you when the Schools teach your kids how to have sex, 'safely'. To an immature mind 'safe' means acceptable and encouraged. They take it as a license and the natural barriers to premature sexual activity by underdeveloped juveniles rises dramatically. It affects you when you have to raise your grand children so that your child can finish her education. It affects you when your child is taught that the faith that you and your family have held for generations isn't wrong, or mistaken, but a sign of mental illness. It affects you when your taxes are raised by initiatives that you not only are given no vote on, but aren't even informed of, because it's a 'national security' issue. It affects you when private data protected by the constitution is made available without a warrant to a shadowy government agency that answers to no one except the executive branch of the United States government, in order to protect you from weapons of mass destruction that never existed. It affects you when the charities and religious institutions that you give donations to are required by the IRS to report the size and purpose of your donation in order to keep their doors open, becoming agents of the government reporting your assets to that government. It affects you when policies that the vast majority of you oppose, such as same sex marriage, abortion of a viable human baby by pulling the baby out of the uterus feet first then decapitating that baby, or gag orders making it illegal for your clergy to evaluate the issues you face in daily life and the political arena from a religious perspective in order to help you make an informed choice, are slipped in as "departmental policies" of the IRS or the Department of Homeland Security.

This is the Orwellian Brave New World Order decreed by George Herbert Walker Bush and this is the kinder, gentler America that this family has perpetrated. Does that mean I am endorsing his opponents? Not in the slightest. I'm simply pointing out that it takes more than just showing up to vote in order to be a responsible citizen. You need to be a careful elector, informed by your religious faith and guided by your instinctive desire to live in freedom not bound by tyranny, however expedient. And I am pointing out that the corollary to Machiavelli is that you don't deserve any better government than you tolerate through complacency and a feeling of false security. Paul pointed out repeatedly that compromise is a synonym for corruption and that the Christian must recognize that he stands apart from the world and has a moral obligation to work in the world to effect change. This is a part of your obligation, as a Jew or a Christian.

The Constitution Of Marriage

July 2004

Lately the various governments of the United States have been quarrelling with the people over the issues of the right to marry. On the one hand we have several states pressing the people to accept that a legal union between consenting adults of legal age and the same sex must defined as a marriage and that persons with this status must be accepted by those who find this immoral and distasteful. Others have been pressing to establish state constitutional amendments to define marriage as one man one woman legally contracted to share property and liability but free to abandon the relationship and divide the assets, burden the man with the majority of liabilities and assign custody of all dependents on the woman (any variations on this sort of division are difficult if not impossible to achieve and are viewed as abnormal). A business partnership between vending machine attendants is more binding and given more respect and credibility by the state.

What this demonstrates most clearly is 1) the disastrous effects of the states usurping the authority of God and the Bible and 2) the sly two pronged attack mode that the devil prefers.

The first issue arises from the fact that the state, in order to stamp out the Mormon heresy in the 19'Th century, began instituting laws against marriage of one man with more than one woman. Many would now try to revise this history to say it was an aspect of the equal rights movement, called the woman's suffrage movement that was in full motion at the time. That is of course an eisegetical approach, attempting to impose 21'st century ideals and motives on 19'Th century law makers.

The 'Church of Christ' movement, localized primarily in the Midwest, of the early 19'th century spawned many tiny sects and sub movements all of whom were focused on the goal of revising Christianity as a whole to more accurately reflect the beliefs and practices of the 1'st century Christians. Some of these groups grew tired of the hard work of reconstruction and clustered around a particular cult leader and spun off to practice the limited degree of restored gospel that they had so far recovered. In the vacuum of a more complete, 'full gospel' paradigm, the personal superstitions and unscholarly interpretations of the Bible by members and cult leaders were substituted for those aspects that were missing.

Often, this lead to the adoption of completely heterodox teachings that were as divergent from the Apostolic succession as the traditional dogmas that abounded in the established churches that these people had come from. In many cases such as Joseph Smith this entailed a blending of Judaism and the mangled Qabbalah held by the freemasons, with a limited portion of the full gospel. The result of this amalgam is so heterodox that there is limited potential for scholarly discussion of Biblical principals. This group has so badly reframed the Bible that every third word seems to be a weighty metaphor to them. Sadly this lead to outrage and even violence in Ohio and Illinois which galvanized the cult and lead many to make the perilous journey to the Utah region of Norte California, which at the time was a Mexican state that had just won its independence as a sovereign nation.

One of the peculiarities of the Mormon cult was that they believed that a man should emulate the Old Testament patriarchs in establishing large tribes by marring multiple wives and having many sons. This was done to increase their numbers, as well as reinforcing their heterodox belief that they had replaced the biological Jews and that the promises of the Old Covenant accrue only to the members of the Latter Day Saints organizations.

The United States saw the Mormon sub movement as a very different entity from the Church of Christ movement that had spawned them. The State and even federal government viewed the Mormons as a potential source of danger to the Union and even a source of terrorism. Whether this was a reasonable interpretation of events at the time is debatable with strong arguments on both sides, but at any rate, the government began to seek ways to legally censure them while not infringing on the rights of the restorations movement as a whole. One of the most notable was to attack the polygyny of the group. First, Polygyny, marriage of one man to multiple wives, was reinvented as polygamy. Polygamy is a term taken from the words of Christ to describe those who divorce a spouse for frivolous reasons and remarry to replace his or her spouse with someone more attractive physically, socially, financially, etc. Interestingly the term polygamy is genderless but it is emotionally charged and inflammatory. The clear intent was to turn an aspect of poor judgment and poor Biblical scholarship, into a crime that must be punished. So the states began to enact laws governing marriage and establishing rules for who could marry. This had little or no effect on the majority of Mormons who, living in Utah, were beyond the reach of the states although the federal government eventually did have authority over them.

The problem is that marriage is both a foundational human behavior and the purview of religious and philosophical thinkers. It is not the place of the state to establish religion, and in so much as the various states, and even the federal government interfere in marriage practices by establishing rules for excluding certain unions from consideration as a valid marriage, they are establishing rules for what is an invalid religion. The natural corollary is that by invalidating a religion you are implicitly 'establishing' the multitude of other religions. While this is not establishing a national Church, it is in fact establishing a religious ecumenicism and is a clear violation of the constitutional bar against blending religion and state.

It was the blending of religion and state that allowed the Christians in Rome to be fed to the lions, it was this evil that lead to the killing of Jew and Christians under the Spanish inquisition, and it was just this thinking that lead the Presbyterians to America to escape the COE and lead these Presbyterians to burn talented bakers and craftsmen at the stake in America.

The government must never be allowed to establish rules for what constitutes a valid religion because this always leads to persecution of the innocent and to tyranny. This is the fundamental doctrine of the separation of church and state. Not to protect the state from religion, but the protect religion from legislators and enforcement officers. The first prong of Satan's typical attack is to distort pervert legitimate authority to act illegitimately. The second prong is inevitably to incite an immoral minority to rebel and destabilize social norms so that a society becomes unstable and more vulnerable to the primary attack. Hitler did this my increasing the tension in the Balkan and Bohemian states, through propaganda intended to emphasize the distinction between subcultures in those states. He preached a "cultural mosaic" where all subcultures must fight for separate and "equal" distinction. At the same time he preached a fictional homogeneity of the Germanic tribes in Western Europe and Poland.

So then we visit an aspect of the second prong of Satan's attack on America, homosexual marriage. Very little could be more oxymoronic. The homosexual male American is a member of the most promiscuous group in the United States. Until the threat of HIV was demonstrated to be most concentrated among this population it was considered normative for a male homosexual in this country to have over 1000 separate sexual partners during his active sexual lifetime. (Marriage and Family Relations, classroom lectures, by Dr. Jiwan Mackey, Nov. 1989) This came from censes and from sociological studies conducted in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The concept of homosexual unions that are committed, exclusive and survive one or more of the partners is a contradiction in terms.

One argument that comes in opposition of this assertion is that heterosexual couples do not practice exclusivity, the relationship doesn't outlive one of the spouses and the commitment of these couples is debatable as a result. And it has been argued that the homosexual relationship might well outlive the spouses because of the risk of AIDS due to HIV. My own opinion is that such an argument is cynical and cheapens the very real suffering of the AIDS patient who has been lead into a risky and sinful lifestyle, only to suffer an excruciating death. For the so-called proponents of the rights of this fatally ill person, to use his illness as a hammer to win an argument, with cynical disregard to the feelings and suffering he is experiencing is indicative of the quality of the argument itself. Truth and rightness seldom produce such callousness and callow inhumanity in their proponents.

Further cracks in the argument appear when it is confronted by scripture. God's opinion is on record. Homosexuality is an abomination before God. The term abomination is an interesting euphemism that has been lost on its readers for far too long. Simply put it means something that is so foul-smelling and putrid, and so unseemly to look at, that it causes nauseousness and vomiting.

When the scriptures state that homosexuality is an abomination to God, they are stating that this sin not only upsets God but revolts him as well. Since marriage is the God ordained union of souls often blessed by the witness of a religious figure, such as a rabbi or priest, it is being called particularly to God's attention and figuratively thrust into his face. Is it really wise to thrust something he finds disgusting into God's face?

Under the rule of the Old Covenant, when a particular family who were not a properly consecrated priests burned the sacred incense it so incensed God that he caused the earth to swallow them in a fissure. That was merely a case of the wrong person doing the right thing in a religious context. Homosexual marriage is merely another example of the wrong people engaging in the right thing. The two prongs of Satan's attack make opportunity for one another. They work in tandem, nudging the pendulum of popular opinion as it swings.

This issue would not even have arisen if it were not for the Government assuming illegitimate authority in determining what in fact constitutes a marriage. By assuming the authority to grant or prevent divorce, by assuming the authority to establish or disestablish marriages and by assuming the authority to determine that the partners in a marriage are less liable to one another than the partners in a business, the government has assumed the authority to establish or disestablish those things that are facets and tenets of religious dogma. Simply put the government has established defacto religion.

What is God's word on Marriage? Does the religious institution then, have the right to determine who may marry? Can one only be married if they have been certified by a church or synagogue? Again the Biblical testimony on the subject is very different from American public policy as well as western religious tradition.

To quote The New Jewish Wedding, by Anita Diamant (' 1985 by the author) she states on page 71:

'To the Midrashic imagination the whole Torah is a Ketubbah [(covenant)] ' a marriage contract -- between God and the people of Israel.'

This picture of the relationship between God and man was only exceeded by the picture of parenthood in the ministry of Jesus. Jesus' use of the Midrash and the Midrashic view of Godly relationship makes the role of marriage a central factor not only of authentic Judaism but of authentic Christianity. To cheapen or degrade the marriage of two people to nothing more than a legal formula practiced for tradition or pragmatism is to likewise cheapen the Role of God's work in the lives of his chosen people and the lives of those who serve him. By rejecting the solemnity and sacrosanct nature of marriage one rejects the grace of God by proxy.

So then, one might assume that an authentic marriage must be established by an authentic religious institution. The religious history (heilsgeschichte) of the Bible says no. When Abraham and Sarai his wife left Iraq and traveled to Palestine in search of religious freedom from the oppressive weight of Zoroastrian idolatry, they had no established religious authority to rely on for sealing a marriage. Abraham was himself a prophet and this made him a religious authority, but the Jewish traditions indicate that it was not seemly that an immediate family member be the only witness to the union.

To quote Diamant on page 107, 'A marriage can be valid without a rabbi [and by extension without a priest] but not without witnesses'a witness gives permanence to human activities that are transitory.' What these witnesses testify to is the contract or ketubbah that defines the quid pro quo, or exchange of value for value that occurs in a marriage. And the witnesses make denying the contract or fudging the terms later on more difficult. This makes a marriage a community transaction in that it involves the credibility and lives of more than just the couple. The couple owes it to the witnesses to meet the terms of the contract, verbal or written that stands between the couple. Failure to remain committed to the marriage is a failure to remain faithful to the people who witnessed the marriage. Where God has been called to witness, this is a most disturbing failure.

As a result of this principal Isaac was married to an Iraqi woman whom he had never met, and Jacob was married to two Iraqi women whom he purchased from their father with 14 years of labor. In every generation the record shows the patriarchs and prophets marrying without benefit of any religious authority, but divorce was strictly governed and managed by religious authority. The authority of the Bible not of the religious figure was the ruling authority in the dissolution of a marriage. The Get or writ of Divorce was the prerogative of a husband, but the legal circumstances where a Get can be drafted are strictly governed by the Mosaic Law.

Moses the law-giver gave us laws governing sexuality and divorce, monetary matters and personal behavior. There are laws governing whom a priest may marry and when, But there is a glaring omission. There is no law governing how a marriage ceremony shall be conducted. There is no law governing the age of the couple and there is no law governing the proof of marriage, except that the woman must use her huppah to document her virginity and place that proof in the care of her parents against the eventuality that her husband might claim she had not been a virgin before the marriage, therefore invalidating the marriage.

What does this tell us? Marriage is a reflection of our theology. If we are frivolous enough to believe that divorce is an option, then we are also frivolous enough to reject God's grace on a whim. We must approach marriage with the long view toward living in an exclusive partnership for the remainder of our lives, without securing a 'way out if it doesn't work out.' Our view of marriage is a reflection of our view toward relationship with God so if we are harboring an escape clause we are not fully committed to God and he says that an incomplete commitment to him is more abominable than rejecting him. Commitment to God and to marriage must be similarly fanatical to the degree of lifelong permanence. Lesser commitment is inadequate, unhealthy and lacks authenticity.

Marriage is like our relationship with God - it is easy to enter, difficult to get out of, and it is impossible to regain if we ever completely end it. Marriage is the purview of the family and the community, but consists of an exclusive contract anatomically gifting one's whole being for the duration that both partners shall live. A marriage amendment can only worsen the situation in America. Unless it is carefully worded so it will only serve to further undermine the social infrastructure and further the end of anti-American systems at work in this country:

Every natural person shall have the right to marry any other person of the opposite sex, so long as 1) both parties have reached the age of majority, 2) neither party is under the age of majority or if under the age of majority has entered puberty and has received permission to marry from the parents or guardians of record, and 3) the female party to that marriage is not currently married and 4) neither party is transgendered through surgery or any other means.

Marriage shall be narrowly defined as the exclusive, contractual; sexual, social and emotional partnership of a man with a woman that once embarked upon cannot be disbanded without the issuance of a divorce by the offended party in the case where the offending party has engaged in illicit sexual activity with a person or multiple persons to whom that offending party is not married. No party to a marriage taking place within the territorial United States, its possessions or protectorates, may marry any other person if they have a surviving spouse from an existing marriage or from a marriage that has been disbanded for any reason other than infidelity by that other spouse.

No person who has been divorced for reason of his or her own sexual infidelity shall be eligible to remarry. No person who has divorced another person or been divorced for any cause other than sexual infidelity shall be eligible for remarriage after divorce so long as the other party in the divorce shall remain alive.

No license or other legal documentation, other than a written contract signed by both parties to the marriage and witnessed by two or more natural persons who are not members of the immediate family of either party to the marriage shall be required to establish a marriage. No church or religious institution that objects to the validity of the marriage on purely religious grounds shall be forced to recognize the marriage.

Any other amendment would end up violating the religious tenets of the Church and, more importantly, the Bible. It would clearly interfere with the free unimpeded practice of religion. And it would violate the First Amendment protection for the free and unimpeded practice of religion.

Eisegesis and Allegory

May 2004

Many times I have been confronted by those who choose to take an alternative approach to Bible study. There are those who reject the Bible's own clear imperatives, in favor of a critical method that tries to reinvent the scripture as a mythopoeic body of wisdom which lacks divine infallibility. There are those who approach it with the absurd intent of reading a gender specific defense into Bible. There are those who selectively literalize obscure passages while seeing clear imperatives as nothing more than a metaphor. However, the most destructive of all are those who see the whole scripture as a system of arcane allegories. These are the most dangerous because they rape the precious word of God of some of its most sacred and intensely beautiful language, in order to defend dogmas, behaviors and practices that are in direct rebellion against the very scripture they presume to represent.

These are they who are constantly rambling about this interpretation or that interpretation of a passage. When confronted by a clear imperative such as thou shalt not Steal, such a scholar will tend to respond, 'that's your interpretation, I have a different interpretation.' Common sense would clearly dictate that such a passage is not allegorical, but these false teachers have long since left sense behind.

We see in Jesus the perfect exegesis (Critical explanation or analysis of a text) because the New Testament proclaims him as the representative, literal embodiment of the Holy Spirit ( רוחאלהים ). For this reason when we see him apply Midrash to old testament passages such as the Isaiah Immanuel texts, we see more than one thing. Yes we see King Y'Shuah, the cabinetmaker's son, naming himself anointed rescuer of Israel. We see Jesus born to the Diaspora living in Syria naming himself King and Lord of his fellow Jews. And we see his friends and neighbors attempting to execute him as a blasphemer for what they perceive as hubris from the rich man's bastard son. But we see more if we are a careful and honest student.

We also can see Jesus himself using and thereby validating, or as we say in Pentecostal circles consecrating, the use of a Midrashic exegetical method. While he does validate the body of work called the Midrash, he does make it a valid place to look for advice in Christian exegesis. Secondly we see him applying a particular form of Midrash that was peculiar to the Essenes and their sympathizers among the Sephardim or Pharisees. We see Jesus sitting in the presence of the congregation and stating that he is the fulfillment of the Son of God prophecies held so precious by the Essenes. In fact the book of John begins with a tract against kabala and proceeds to prove Jesus as the Anointed One of God, the Son of God and the Son of Man. For those who have some background in Mystery Religion, These terms can take on special significance and John repeatedly hits those buttons and demonstrates that the correct meaning and application is Jesus, rather that the allegorical applications that such men and women are prone to affect.

What we see in Jesus is a literal application of even the most obscure, predictive or apocalyptic foretelling in the Bible. We see a very literal application of imperative passages wherein God speaks to man through a prophet ordering behavior and practice. And lastly we see Jesus accepting idiomatic passages in the existing text as idiom rather than over literalizing these and, thereby losing the meaning and intent of the author.

In other words, Jesus clearly viewed the prophets and writers of the first covenant as being sane, rational men who had a rational body of information and knowledge to communicate, who spoke in an old-fashioned dialect, but who spoke the simple literal truth of their teachings. It boggles the mind that any honest student of Christ could decide to place his own understanding and enlightenment above that of our Lord and Savior.

Nothing I have referred to here has ruled out the legitimate use of allegory by writers of the first or second covenants. Jesus clearly used allegory when he spoke the parables; a parable is by definition allegorical. And similarly there are allegories in the old testament. But it is foolish to take major portions, for instance whole chapters of Genesis and attempt to claim the author was telling an allegory. Such thinking is in fact hubris. But most especially, it is ethnocentric discrimination.

To assume that only a post modern, University educated, exegetically liberal mind, engaging in eisegesis (forcing ones own image into the text) can possibly have real and authoritative knowledge of processes and systems that have never been witnessed by mortal man, is the same sin that Lucifer committed. This is to claim that you are more competent than the God you profess. Now I'll grant you that there are those who are atheist and who never the less claim to be Biblical scholars, such people are saddest of all. As the Bible repeatedly points out in both covenants, one cannot begin to understand the import, intent or exegesis of the Bible until one is initiated into the service of God. That is to say, you can't begin to understand the Bible until you have become a Jew according to the Biblical pattern, or have become a Christian according to the Biblical pattern.

In Zechariah (avahodesh or zecharijahu) chapter 4, the prophet refers to two trees giving forth sacred oil to fuel the menorot (candlesticks) that stand in the presence of almighty God the King of all creation. In revelation we again see there are two trees that stand for the two covenants between God and man. There is only one way to serve God and that is through honest childlike trust in his revealed word and acceptance of his love and most importantly his sovereignty. God has made two covenants with man, and as the Apostle Paul wrote, the gifts and callings of the Lord are never rescinded. Return to the simple Gospel; reject the overpowering and foolish philosophies and traditions of Men. God himself has plainly explained himself. Read his word. Trust his character. Only in God is there any hope for peace, joy, or understanding. Bless the Holy name of the Lord and bless his faithful believers.

Prophecy and Privacy

October/November 2003

David was a man after God's own heart. That simple old English construction has been misconstrued to fit so many different doctrines regarding personal holiness it boggles the mind. Any student of poetry would be glad to reassure you that this particular phrase clearly means one who has the affectionate approval of God. It isn't a particularly hard construction to read. The problem arises because people are uncomfortable with the clear sins and hard punishments that are an integral part of the biography of David ben-Jesse the second king of Historical Israel.

These punishments and the sins that precipitated them make it difficult for people to accept that David was a man after God's own heart, because he fails to exhibit the antiseptic, inhuman character of a Greek hero or a Roman Catholic "saint". His humanness offends the delicate sensibilities of many readers and they find themselves revising the text to produce a man after their own hearts.

In making this simple error, they set their own standards above those of God. They exhibit the sort of hubris that places one's own values and judgment ahead of that of the creator. God loved David because he was obedient and compassionate, and mostly because he had the sort of clear vision of God's Character that is later called faith unto salvation. He trusted God and took God's word to be so absolute that it stood as a law of nature. He saw the will of God as clearly and as inevitably as gravity or inertia.

That being the case, how could he have been subjected to such painful punishments? The wrath of God was poured out on him through the loss of protection for his family and kingdom. One of his children raped another; a third killed the former to avenge the later and all except Solomon were either killed or lost to depravity. God made David choose the method by which a huge segment of the population of Israel would be killed. David had to weigh life against life and decide between disaster and plague as the means of death.

Clearly some principal must be at work that doesn't meet human expectations. If David was a godly man, how could God be so drastic toward David? The punishment involving the death of Israelis bears some close examination. What precipitated the pronouncement of death and how was it a punishment for David?

The Bible tells us that David was pleased with his prowess in battle. He had begun to buy into his own press. People had compared him to Saul saying, "Saul has killed his thousands, David his tens of thousands." This accolade from the people began to go to his head and David felt the need to perform so that the people would not loose interest and quit praising him. Clearly, he was suffering from the same fears and frustration that an aging athlete faces when his body begins to loose the ability to perform on the field or track. David wanted greater touchdowns and homeruns in order to keep the fans happy.

In order to achieve this, he had begun to make plans for a census. What he wanted to do was create a selective service program so that men could be summoned and pressed into service whether they wanted military service or not. More than that it aided in taxation so that he could levy large sums and insure that every person be forced to pay. The census would give him the ability to identify philistine terrorists and insurgents, and it would allow him to begin conquering neighbors such as Edom and Amelek. With a census and conscription, David could create widows, paupers and an Empire. With a census, David could elevate himself to the halls of great emperors like Nebuchadnezzar.

Sounds fine for David. And by extension, the establishment of Levitical Faith in God through the conquered lands would spread the good news of the law and the prophets. Seems like everyone would win except Israel's enemies, and the people of God would be protected. Their homeland would be secure. Does that not make sense? In point of fact David was building the foundation for a tyranny. God stopped him. The census was allowed to be taken because God will not impede free will, but the census was taken in opposition of many of the fundamental principles of the Law and the prophets. In essence, it was taken in opposition to God's will.

In the law, there was provision for what is called a city of refuge. This has confused enough people that these cities are often overlooked and don't enter into the curriculum of most Bible teachers. The purpose of the City of Refuge was to provide a place for the convicted to escape punishment. Now that sounds very alien to the modern Mind Especially the mind of the average American. The idea of an institution created by the Federal or Royal government, whose sole purpose is to thwart the execution of lawful punishments against enemies of the State or the Crown, seems ludicrous. Nevertheless, we have clear instructions to create them in the Received Text of the Canon. This is confusing, until we examine the premises that they are built on.

Fundamentally, Temporal (human) Authority is fallible. Governments and religious organizations make mistakes. They assume that their own suspicion of a subject is sufficient proof of guilt. This makes it incumbent on those authorities to demonstrate their lack of bias and just or fair application of rules and regulations under their purview.

In direct opposition to this principal, years of TV fantasies document the very real trend in Western culture from the presumption of innocence to the presumption of guilt. Any credible course on critical reasoning and logic, will point out the fact that you cannot prove a negative. When the accuser is given the presumption of authority, the accused is forced to prove a contra positive in order to vindicate him or her self.

In a world where the person on trial is guilty until they prove themselves innocent, there is no option but to shift the blame to someone else; Truth is overlooked and devalued; and the guilty go free while an innocent, who is unwilling and/or financially unable to find a victim to blame, is imprisoned or worse.

God is the very essence of Truth and of Justice. Real Godly Justice sets truth above the needs and beliefs of any interested party. Justice tempered with mercy seeks to punish and redeem the guilty, while rewarding and prospering the innocent. Veritasse et mercedes super omniea. Additionally Godly justice insures the anonymity and privacy of the subject who has not committed a crime. So how does this tie in with the Cities of Refuge where the guilty go free?

The truth is, the guilty don't go free. A genuine believer has confidence on the competence of God to manage and influence his creation. If you have trust in the Character of God you have to concede that he is omnicompetent and that he breathes justice from every pore of his being. Knowing that, you have to accept that he would not allow the guilty to take advantage of an institution he established to thwart justice.You must accept there is a long term outcome that benefits the kingdom and all interested parties who are called of God and obedient to his will.

The city of Refuge allows God to protect the innocent who are falsely convicted. You may ask, "Since God is omnicompetent, shouldn't he be able to just stop the conviction or hide the accused so that they can't be punished?" But why stop there? Why wouldn't God just stop the crime from happening in the first place? Why wouldn't he just make the guilty confess? The why's go on ad inifinitum.

The answer is fairly simple. The act of directly altering the course of every individual life so that bad things never happen would not only eliminate freewill, it would result in individuals who are too immature to be considered integrated, mature personalities.

God isn't looking for small babies to spend eternity with. He wants companions and friends. He wants people who have worked out their own salvation with fear and trembling weighing the costs and choosing to pursue Godly living in spite of the costs. He wants love and obedience freely given not coerced, or offered out of fear of the alternative.

To directly interfere in a visible way with every bad decision made by the wheels of "justice" would obviate freewill but it also would prevent the operation of faith. Who would need to exercise any effort to believe in the character of God, if a voice from on high was directly influencing the outcome of every court case; if the falsely convicted simply disappeared on a regular basis; the courts would simply convict everyone without deliberation and leave it for God to sort out.

So, we revisit the census that David produced. How was it ungodly? It was motivated from pride and it was a means of increasing human control over the course of events. It would have made it nearly impossible for God to influence the wheels of Justice without demonstrated miracles. It would have made it necessary to cause people to disappear or alter their very person in order to protect the falsely accused from the execution of sentence. This census would have made it possible for David to begin consolidating the middle east under one authority in a way that would have prevented God from meting justice against Israel when she was in rebellion.

God's answer was to apply a higher justice. He permanently altered the demographics of Israel by killing a significant segment of the population. In addition, He punished David by making David an active participant in the destruction of his new toy, this census. David had to agonize over the lives to be lost. He had to accept in a very personal way that those lives were lost through his own pride and he had to watch his dream of a grand empire collapse.

God insured his prerogative to determine justice and to thwart it at the expense of David's pride. Yet, David was so in tune with the Holy Spirit, that he foresaw God's next major move, namely the creation of a permanent temple to replace the tabernacle. This demonstrates that even those who are committed to and in tune with God's will can fall prey to pride and other distractions that cause them to make decisions and judgments in opposition to God's will. God deliver us from well-meaning, prideful fools.

In Service to our Lord,

Fred

To the Church in Corinth

' 2003 Wesleyan Episcopal Assemblies Pentecostal

September 2003

Recently a synod of a mainline denomination in the United States confirmed an openly confessed and practicing homosexual as a Bishop of the Church. A divinely called and scripturally ordained priesthood is called by God to give leadership to the church as it fulfills its purpose in performance of the sacerdotal functions. The Bible clearly advises the

ordination of Overseers or Bishops as needed to administrate distinct geographic regions. A Bishop must be a devout and respectable believer of mature experience, sound Christian character, and ability, who has been married and only once and who has established his (or her) good reputation in the community prior to the nomination (Philippians 1:1; I Timothy 3:8; Ephesians 4:11).

God's call to this ministry is entirely at his discretion without regard to gender, race, physical disability or national origin. A Bishop is one who has shown good judgment and Biblical guidance in management and administration. However being well liked and respected as a person, doesn't qualify a candidate for such an important office without the additional requirement that they also be men or women of good moral character.

Scripture teaches us that in the last days many will fall from the faith (Matthew 24:8-10; 2Thessalonians 2:2,3) and seek teachers who promote unrepentant sinful life as a parody of Christian Liberty (2 Peter 2:1-3; James 3:1). This apostasy will twist the minds of many causing them to instead falsely condemn those who remain faithful to the biblical imperative to live a holy life (Matthew 24:11, 12). In these days of growing apostasy, state and federal laws are continually being rewritten to encourage the free practice of rebellious and licensuous lifestyles, including Homosexuality.

Homosexuality and lesbianism can more properly be known corporately as Homosexuality, since this term has no gender value and refers to sexual activity between members of the same sex. It is the repeated witness of scripture that persons who engage in homosexuality are suffering from a state of delusion and a sinfully depraved mind (Leviticus 18:22;  20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17; Judges 19:22,23; Romans 1:26-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9). God provides healing and restoration for persons who engage in all sorts of sinful behavior and freedom from the desire to commit those sins. Homosexual sin is not deemed to be more severe than any sexual sin, or other conceit (Romans 3:22-25; 6:20-23). However, since the principles of natural procreation and male-female union are violated by homosexual relationships (Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9), they can never be deemed to be marriages and cannot be blessed or sealed by God.

Scripture clearly calls for the encouragement and protection of marriage and the family. As with any sinful sexual behavior, homosexual persons are entitled to healing and restoration to the faith, once they have turned away from (repented) their chosen sinful lifestyle. The Church must not exclude from fellowship, those homosexual persons who are committed to seeking such healing. However any homosexual or in fact any person engaged in any rebellious and licentious lifestyle may not legitimately claim to be called of God or Ordained by God for leadership and service in the Church. The role of a leader is to model the behavior and the relationship with God which are espoused by Scripture. For instance, Paul said be disciples of me even as I am discipled by Christ.

The Holy Spirit operates in the life of an authentic believer. This activity of the spirit produces fruit, which Paul refers to corporately as Sanctification (John 10:27-29; Romans 8:35-39). Sanctification is a work in the life of the believer, which produces a separation from evil, (Genesis 17:1; Romans 12:1,2; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 13:12; 2 Corinthians 6:14; 7:1) and dedication to God (John 14:23; Colossians 3:17; 1 John 2:6). Many would try to argue that love means unconditional acceptance. This is certainly not the witness of the Bible or of common sense. When a parent loves his or her child, that parent places many restrictions on the behavior of the child. Such restrictions are a necessary part of healthy emotional and social development. Behavior that leads to danger or that will cause emotional harm is censured by punishment. Genuine love demands punishment, which is proportional to the misbehavior.

A loving child will grow to appreciate the correction and guidance provided by such a parent, so long as this punishment is tempered by good judgment. This appreciation is a result of emotional maturity and is often precipitated by the birth of a grandchild. This model is extended into the spiritual arena. God takes the role of a parent providing guidance and correction. As we mature, we respond to this loving and kind use of a Rod and Staff by showing appreciation and returning love. The spiritual grandchildren that often precipitate this maturity are those new believers that we lead to Christ or are privileged to teach. The outward evidence of mature love for Christ is a life of righteousness and true holiness (Ephesians 4:22-24; Titus 2:11-14), which is focused on pleasing God rather than satisfying the carnal nature (2 Corinthians 5:9-13) and by faith reckoning daily upon the fact of that life, and by offering every faculty continually to the dominion of the Holy Ghost (Romans  6:1-11, 13; 8:1,2, 13; Galatians 2:20; Philippians 2:12,13; 1 Peter 1:5).

This new life in Christ causes a person to have a new nature, predicated on the foundation of the spiritual disciplines, for the perfection of the saint (1 Peter 1:15, 16). For this reason, no person currently engaged in a lifestyle proscribed by the Bible may be given full fellowship, or be allowed to hold any office in the Church. No ordinance or sacerdotal function may be extended to a person who is habitually engaged in a sinful behavior (1 Corinthians 5:9-13). Further, no person who has failed to mature to a point of such appreciation for this loving kindness can be trusted with a position of authority and leadership.

Good leadership in the Church demands Spiritual maturity. No practicing Homosexual is a spiritually mature Christian believer. Maturation in Christ would of necessity, precipitate the healing and repentance of a behavior that Christ himself condemned as sinful. God loves the Homosexual but he demands that they mature and grow in holiness, leaving behind the things of the flesh. Join me in praying for the cleansing and restoration of our brothers and sisters who have taken the decision to allow such a rebellious lifestyle to stand in their assembly. Let's remember that such apostasy is a clear defiance of God, and that the precious people who have been deceived into supporting this decision will surely encounter censure by the Holy Spirit. God help them to repent quickly.

In Service to our Lord,

Fred

Counterfeit Revival

' 2003 Wesleyan Episcopal Assemblies Pentecostal

August 2003

I grew up in the Assemblies of God. Over the years, so called 'reconciliation' ministries have begun to work a revision on the history of the origins of the various Pentecostal denominations. In this revisionist history, Pentecostals are just very special Baptists who accept the Evangelical doctrines, but have an added 'light' concerning the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. My own first hand experience belies that specious claim.

The Pentecostal movement in America had antecedents which were scattered across the Midwest and East Coast. But the real outpouring that lead to the eventual organization of discreet associations and denominations was clearly localized in Los Angeles, California. It would be a very bold revisionist indeed who would brazen his way through an account that failed to give principal responsibility for the authoritative Role Played by Bishop Seymour and the Azusa revival.

In every real sense Seymour played the role of Apostle, or Missionary of the full gospel. He published a journal which lead to the spread of the truth of Sanctification, Healing and Fire Baptism of the Holy Spirit. This journal influenced a generation of pastors and teachers who were so inspired by the simple truths and first hand accounts that they themselves were transformed and in turn began works. Seymour sent missions workers to foreign lands and to the ripe fields of 20'th century America. These men and women were in every sense disciples of Seymour, just as Timothy had been discipled by Paul. Paul's admonition was to be a disciple of him, in the same way that he was in turn discipled by Christ.

Seymour lead many to a deeper understanding of the relationship of the church with Christ through the acceptance of those portions of the Gospel which had been neglected in the theological dark ages between the 11'th and 19'th centuries. In a very real sense the 'enlightenment' had been a period of endarkenment theologically. People had neglected substance in favor of formula and had espoused doctrines which were politically and financially expedient rather than Biblically and Spiritually sound.

The Pentecostal or Full-Gospel revival restored much of what had been lost to power brokers and charlatans over the previous period. But it did so at the expense of good relations with various 'Restorationist' movements which had gone only so far in their efforts and failed to the take the next crucial step when God offered it. The false starts had gone far in changing the course of the church and bringing God's people into repentance, but not far enough.

These days a number of 'counterfeit' revivals have sprung up to confuse the issue. They claim to have picked up the mantle of the Pentecostal pioneers and continued the work in the same fashion that Elishah continued the work of Elijah. This claim is easily denied. Three critical factors have been the hallmark of every revival decreed by God going back to the calling of Abraham. These are: 1) a call to repentance and personal holiness, 2) a call to greater submission to the sovereignty of God, and 3) a deeper more perceptual relationship with the Spirit of God.

The 21'st century has so far shown signs of swallowing the success of the Pentecostal movement in a swamp of ecumenicism and compromise. These counterfeit revivals place great emphasis on emotionalism and on purported guarantees of wealth contained in heterodox interpretations of scripture devoid of the meaning intended by the context. They fail to bear the brand of repentance and submissive relationship and instead claim boastfully to have authority to command God. Lack of good scholarship or in some cases clearly fraudulent intent has lead many to tickle the ears with promises of wealth and justification, without purity or submission. They claim grace offers the promise not of sonship, but of the demanding, controlling relationship of a spoiled brat. Where Jesus advises that we be like the beggar disturbing our lord in the wee hours (Luke 11:5-9), they claim we should name what we want and yell 'mine, mine, mine!' like a two year old dragging bedraggled parents through the aisles of a toy store.

This new endarkenment has been accompanied by many signs of the End Times Prophecies. And one of those is a thorough lack of internal holiness. Even those organizations and movements that stress holiness are stressing an outward form that has no basis in real 'circumcision of the heart'.

In Romans Paul points out that the act of engaging in an outward formula to achieve holiness, such as the practice of circumcision, holds no value if it is not echoed by a heart change that guides behavior dynamically. Real Holiness comes as Paul points out from becoming a new type of person who is sanctified and therefore recognizes subtle corruption and avoids it without need for a rule-book. Yet these 'holiness' believers will practice all sorts of envies and slanders, and even condone things which Jesus himself declared to be sinful. One example would be the stance on divorce.

Divorce is a difficult topic. Human wisdom (Proverbs 14:12) would lead one to believe that divorce is often a compassionate solution to messy human relationships. Jesus words contradict that notion. In Matthew 19:3-12 and in Mark 10:2-12 Jesus words on this subject are recorded. The context is critical here. One must bear in mind that the Old Covenant demanded that the believer execute those persons caught in adultery. The penalty under the law is not divorce but physical death! At the time Jesus spoke, those present were keenly aware that adultery was a capital crime according to Jewish law. So, what was the question that was being raised?

Divorce in the Old Testament was only offered as an option to men. Its purpose was to allow a man who was offended by the moral or social characteristics of his wife to force her out of the home and away from his children. She could be 'put away' because she was offensive to her husband's sensibilities, and he could replace her with someone he was more attracted to. Look out when a man hits mid-life.

Jesus comment was that this was a sign of a lack of compassion, a hard heart. Throughout Jesus ministry wherever he talks about a hard heart, he is indicating someone who is not submitted to the will of God, and is rebelling against God's guidance. This is the case here as Well. Jesus is saying Moses allowed you to divorce because you were rebellious and (by extension) because he knew you would sin if he didn't give you some room to be rebellious (Matthew 19:7-8).

Jesus then goes on to say, 'I bring you a better way' (Matthew 5:31, 32). Jesus whole ministry was the presentation of a 'better way' the Way that is called Christianity. He is presenting a method, wherein one is sanctified by the Holy Spirit and lead to the 'power to become a son of God'. This power is the power that Peter spoke of on Pentecost and the power that Paul called the freedom from slavery to sin (Romans 6:6-8). Simply put it is supernatural ability to obey God, and to express Godly compassion.

So then, this better way concerning divorce is clearly a single facet of the larger way that leads one to live in Jesus. What is the better way that Jesus espouses here? Simply put it is, 'Don't Divorce'. He doesn't merely restrict people from divorcing because they are 'incompatible' or have irreconcilable differences. He repeals the Old Testament sentence for those guilty of adultery. He tells us now, not only can you not divorce for reason of being offended; you can't execute the adulterous mate. What's more, you really ought to forgive and stay with that mate. And if you do divorce your mate without the cause of adultery on their part, you are responsible for your ex spouse's sexual frustration and eventual sin (Matthew 5:32).

That's a strong statement. But it is born out by other passages. Jesus told us that one person can in fact be responsible for the sin of another. He warns us that someone might be capable of causing a child of God to stumble. He is so adamant about this that he offers a threat and a curse against those who cause this. He says it would be better to have a huge grindstone tied round your neck and be drowned in the ocean with it (Luke 17:1-3). This is pretty strong language. Al Capone, with his cement overshoes, couldn't have been more threatening.

But clearly in Matthew 5, Jesus asserts that he, who leaves a spouse for illegitimate reasons, causes the former spouse to stumble into adultery. Mark 10 demonstrates that Jesus intent was that the principles he taught concerning divorce were not gender based and apply equally to men and women.

The critical factor is that issue of inadequate compassion. Moses allowed not condoned, divorce because the people lacked compassion. When we look at 1 Corinthians 13, we find that compassion is the core of Christian Life. Without internal, heartfelt Compassion we are irrelevant and meaningless, and no amount of compassionate behavior or ministry can make us relevant.

This goes back to the issue of a circumcised heart. Paul shows us that without circumcision of the heart we are irrelevant. Jesus shows us that condoning or practicing divorce proves a lack of inner circumcision. Essentially, if you cut your hair a certain way, blow shofar at worship, rebuke generational curses, deliver others from addiction and pornography, cast out demons, sing beautiful songs that stir hearts from Wacko to Topeka, but condone divorce you are carnal and meaningless.

We live under grace not the Law, but as Paul pointed out grace operates according to principles or a 'Law of Grace' (Romans 6:20-22). Jesus said, 'If you love me, keep my commandments.' Grace is freely given, but there is a maintenance fee. That fee is obedience, and the Red Letters clearly mark out the path of that obedience. Join me in prayer for the reconciliation of Divorcees, and the restoration of the American home. Let's drive carnality and hard-heartedness out of our churches, so genuine revival will come (1 Corinthians 5:5,9-13).

In the service of our Lord,

Fred

Are You Tongue Tied?

July 2003

Copyright ' 2003 by Wesleyan Episcopal Assemblies Pentecostal a California non-profit association. All rights reserved.

Once upon a time two apologists were arguing over the validity of miraculous tongues. One, an evangelical preacher and critic, was aggressively pounding out his understanding that tongues should cease. In mid sentence, as he utters the words of 1 Corinthians 13:8, "Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease'"

His opponent, a Pentecostal preacher, interrupts to say, "Do you like ice cream cones?"

Startled from his tirade, the critic responds, "Yeah they're pretty good. Why?"

The preacher continues, "So, do you eat one with your teeth?"

The critic looks puzzled as he says, "I do some, but mostly I lick the ice-cream till it's gone."

"Really?" The preacher responds, "Then what do you lick it with? Do you use your nose or your teeth?"

The critic answers suspiciously, "No, I generally use my tongue."

The preacher responds smugly, "Really, you eat ice-cream by speaking English at it?"

The critic snarls disgustedly as he responds, "No! That's not what tongue means in this context!"

This story is, of course pure fiction, but it illustrates an important point about context. Obviously, the word glossa, which is the Greek name of the oral appendage called the tongue must be understood in light of the surrounding text. Its use by a Greek speaker to refer to a spoken language was idiomatic in the first century just as it is today.

In 1 Corinthians 13:8 the surrounding context refers to knowledge and prophecy as things that would be made obsolete by the arrival of "that which is perfect." A common interpretation of the perfect referred to here, by critics of supernatural tongues is the arrival of the written cannon. The mistake in this line of thinking is two-fold.

Firstly, the Canon itself reaffirms the need for scholarship. "Study to show thyself approved, a workman that need not be ashamed." This is a clear imperative for the believer to gain in knowledge during the Christian Era. So long as there is a Canon there is a source for knowledge. This clearly demonstrates that the perfect, which causes the absolution of knowledge, has not yet come.

Secondly, the canon cannot precipitate the cessation of prophecy. The scripture of the old Covenant is a collection of three bodies of literature. The Mosaic law (Torah), the writings of the major and minor prophets (Nevyim), and the Poetic writings (Ketuvyim). Prophecy is best defined as God's contemporary instructions and predictions concerning the outcome of obedience or disobedience of those instructions. Jesus himself informed us that all scripture is beneficial for teaching Godly faith and practice, therefore it qualifies as prophecy which is the revelation to man of God's will. Another way that prophecy enters the arena of Christian and of Jewish experience is in the body of sermons, inspired by the spirit of God. Preaching is a synonym for prophesying, and is used quite frequently in the Old Covenant writings to refer to activity of God's prophets. Jesus himself, informed us that not one small letter [from any word] of the prophecies of Old Testament Canon shall pass away until they are fulfilled in their entirety.

The Bible contains many apocalyptic, or end of time predictions. According to Jesus, the canon and its body of prophecy cannot pass away until the apocalypses contained within it have been fulfilled. To put it simply, Prophecy cannot cease till the End of Time. Therefore, that which is perfect cannot arrive; by Jesus' own testimony, until Time has concluded. Prophecy, tongues, and knowledge shall persist, until Time has been concluded.

Now what does tongues really mean in this context? Opponents of tongues have committed a serious faux pas by linking the tongues in this passage to the gift of tongues. This passage, when viewed in light of the testimony of Jesus Christ, would say that tongues shall cease, when time has concluded. For all practical purposes, they have proven the case that tongues is intended by God to be normative within the church. However to be fair I must point out that it is quite reasonable to believe that the tongues referred to in this passage must be the oral member. Read in this way, this passage would read, "Love never fails, even if prophecy withers, tongues pause, and knowledge fades."

Clearly, this is a hyperbole intended to illustrate the durability and power of Godly Love (Agape). Any intellectually honest interpretation of this passage will conclude that it is in no way a reference to a historical period where the scripture is present but God's miraculous power has ceased to work in the lives of his faithful.

Join with me in seeking whatever God has to offer. Anything God offers can only be a benefit in the life of a believer. The measure of a believer's devotion, is his ability leave behind the norms and presuppositions of the World becoming gradually more conformed to the pattern of biblical life. Let's not allow fear and prejudice prevent us from taking hold of the gifts. Let us all get our eyes off the form and formula and focus on the giver of these gifts. When we are thoroughly committed to allowing God to work in our lives in any fashion he sees as appropriate and focus all our attention on mimicking Christ and improving our relationship with his sweet Spirit, we can forgive him for choosing a mode of expression that we might find embarrassing. Real faith is trusting God even when he doesn't meet our human sense of propriety.

God bless you and keep you in his holiness.

Fred

Open Letter

June 2003

' 2003 by Wesleyan Episcopal Assemblies Pentecostal a California non-profit association. All rights reserved.

God has laid on my heart the need for a renewal of that fire baptism that the Wesleys were so gracious as to share with us. For many years, the work of men like Bishop Seymour in Azusa, California and Agnes Ozman in Ohio state, lead people to a consecration and a single minded devotion that brought powerful testimony of God's love and grace as well as his direct intervention in the daily lives of believers.

The ministry of the many branches of the Wesleyan Methodist Episcopal Church led people to this deeper consecration by teaching the basic principles of genuine Christian practice. They lived the character of the Apostles creed and they practiced a simple trust in the character and nature of God that had a dynamic effect.

The late 20'th century saw the advent of a New Age of anti-Christian Mysticism and metaphysics. This movement has polluted the very fabric of American society and the Western world at large. It has infiltrated the schools and public service agencies with a message of religious humanism where Mankind is elevated to the status of gods in training. This Spirit of Antichrist has even made insurgencies into the leadership of once powerful ministries including mainline denominations and the Wesleyan movement in all it's sundry expressions has not been unaffected.

It is time for a change; not a reinvention of the wheel, but a real repentance. The Wesleyan movement has always been an outspoken advocate of Evangelism and of the need for a spirit filled life. My own roots are with the Assemblies of God, which, as many of you will know, owes its origins to the work of spirit filled Wesleyan Episcopal priests and ministers. These men were inspired by the writings of Bishop Seymour and by the testimonies of real people touched by the healing hand of our precious savior.

The Assemblies of God is a fine organization. They have a written doctrine contained in the16 Fundamental Truths that is clearly biblical and just as clearly a variation on the central theme of Wesley's three moments of salvation (i.e. Salvation, Sanctification, & Fire Baptism). That is fine as far as it goes. But, even in this esteemed organization. there are those who have espoused the fancies of the New Age and preach a brand of metaphysics, wherein God is reduced to a vending machine for those who are strong willed enough to wish things into being. For these men and women prayer is nothing more than demanding what you want like a spoiled child, or a thaumaturgical rite where calling on significant names binds celestial beings to do one's bidding. Thankfully, such malpractice is still relatively rare, but sadly it exists.

This letter is intended as an invitation. In a sense it is an old fashioned Methodist altar call. I am inviting you to join me in prayer for America. Not the ecumenical papist prayer that asks a generic God to rubber stamp the activities of our civil authorities. Instead I'm asking you to pray in fear and in trembling that the unchanging God who destroyed Sodom and Babylon with equal contempt, will bring the leadership of the American Churches to a place of repentance. We need an outpouring of that Old Time Fire that moved and shaped the Wesleyan movement so long ago.
 

Let's pray that God will bring true repentance and the blessings that inevitably will follow. Let's pray for the single minded devotion of the early church. Let's reclaim the term true believer which has become a pejorative in the media. If you are interested in joining this effort or if you have a specific prayer request, please write or email me at weap@mycommlog.com. As God moves, we hope to begin circulating a praise report of God's intervention and intercession on the part of a praying people.
 

Sincerely,

Fred Franklin Davis Junior

Founder/Apostle