Pastor’s Blog, August 2007
2007:
February March
April May
June July
September October
November December
2008: January February March
April May June
July
Progress digitizing Faith Assembly recorded sermons: March 26, 1995 p.m.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Hebrews 10
6:35 p.m.
Well, well! Less than a week between posts! I know this is rather a trite thing
to say, but, I find that the more I read the Bible, the less satisfied I am with
my Christian walk, and also, the more concerned I am for the body of Christ.
More and more, it seems like Christians, as a rule, are living on the basis of
laws and rules, and don’t begin to grasp the concept of Christian liberty. Not
license, but liberty. The two ideas are as different as night and day.
Christian liberty begins with being changed from the inside
out, so that our desires and interests are no longer connected with things of
this world. Once that happens, there is no longer the fear that we will surely
go astray if we don’t live by laws and rules. We are also released from caring
what the world thinks about our interests and desires. If they think we are
weird, we don’t care. If they think we are deprived, we don’t care. If they
think we are elitist or exclusive, we don’t care. If they think we are
deluded, we don’t care.
But, Christian liberty does not necessarily mean we have no
interests outside of reading the Bible, praying, keeping house, earning a
living, going to church, and so on. But, where many worldly interests are
related things that are seen of men, that would make us appear important, or
attractive, or successful, or talented, those kinds of things hold no attraction
to the Christian. And, since the Christian does not care what the world thinks,
he is free to pursue interests that do not attract notice or attention.
I look around, and I see so much of what professing
Christians do is related to looking good before the world: accepting, and trying
to keep up with, the world’s standards, like the western, affluent lifestyle
of home, car, clothes, food, activities, and so on. People are in a form of
slavery, trying to meet the world’s standards, while claiming Christian
liberty.
While Christian liberty does not mean I can always do just as
I please, it does mean the outside forces that constrain my actions are not laws
and rules: neither the laws and rules of the Old Testament in the Bible, nor the
laws or rules of this world. If there is one thing the Bible teaches, it is that
laws and rules just do not work as a basis to regulate behavior. You always end
up failing. Of course, with or without laws and rules, we do fail. But, I am
talking about incurring condemnation for failing to keep a law or rule, when the
Bible says we are no longer the law!
Sin is falling short. But, for the Christian, it is not
falling short of the law, but of another standard entirely. When I say that the
more I read, the less satisfied I am with my Christian walk, I am not talking
about failing to fulfill the law, or follow rules; I am talking about the desire
to be like Jesus. We can keep the law perfectly, while we carefully arrange our
lives to avoid trials or persecution, which, according to the New Testament,
surely come to all who would live godly in Christ Jesus. Where I am concerned
about falling short is falling short of the way of the cross, following in
Jesus’ steps.
It is when we strive to follow the steps of Jesus that the
world will begin to accuse us of breaking their rules. Nominal Christians will
accuse us of being proud and judgmental, just because our lifestyle testifies of
separation from the world, and thus, we expose them for their worldly and carnal
lives. To justify their own worldly interests, they always come back to the
excuse that they need to have a “point of contact” to be able to minister to
the world. But, of course, by using worldly interests as a point of contact,
they effectively do away with the entire point of the gospel message, which is
to set us free from this present evil world. To one who is truly free, the
excuse is as transparent as water. It is only those who are free who can call
the lost out of this world into the true freedom of life in Christ.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Philemon
2:35 p.m.
Believe it or not, I am still alive and well. I just have not had anything that
I felt I needed to blog about. We had a nice church campout the weekend of
August 10–12 at Chain O’ Lakes State Park. The water was really high, which made
it an ideal week-end for canoeing, and I got out twice.
I am starting preparation for Greek class. I still have my
notes from the last time I taught, which will save me quite a lot of time. I
have ordered the books, and am waiting for their arrival.
Well, this is all I have to say for now. God bless and keep
all those who strive to walk in the steps of Jesus.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Galatians 4
7:25 a.m.
Well, it’s been two weeks since my last blog. I cannot honestly say I have been
so busy I could not find time to blog; but, it has been a time of considerable
turmoil, and I personally do not think of this blog as a forum to open up about
things I have to deal with, unless there is an edifying purpose to do so.
So, after two weeks, here is a resumé of issues:
First, anticipating and preparing for a coming major commitment to hold classes
in New Testament Greek here at Faith Assembly. A starting date has been
selected: Lord willing, the first class will be Sunday, September 10, at 4:30
p.m.
Second, ongoing contacts with people
who believe they are the only ones holding fast to the end-time faith message,
who have very fixed ideas about almost any aspect you can bring up, and... well,
as I said, that is not the purpose of this blog, to go into all the details.
Third, several of my daughters
studying the passages on the wearing of the head covering (I Corinthians 11, as
well as some others) and coming to a different conclusion than the position as
taught by the former pastor. Namely, some of them (not all of them) feel that
the point of the passage is the fundamental purpose of the head covering, which
is to serve as a visible testimony that a woman recognizes and accepts God’s
divine order of the man being the head over the woman. As they see it, the point
of the passage is not to specify when to wear it, but to say that the reason it
is to be worn in certain specific situations goes back to its basic purpose,
which is just as true in any situation. So, the conclusion is, if they wear it
for the fundamental purpose for which it is given, it is just as important in
the general public, where divine order is generally not accepted, as at meetings
of the church, where it is assumed, at least in our circles, that God’s order is
accepted. And, in my humble opinion, if I saw it that way and made it a rule,
that would be legalism; but since that is what they see, and they are the ones
who have to wear the head covering, then it would be legalism on my part to make
a rule that they could only wear the head covering in church meetings. However,
it seems that people who have always done it the “official” way are sometimes
inclined to be very defensive about this issue, and this is why it has been a
source of turmoil. (I guess I’ve gone into a little detail there, but I trust it
serves an edifying purpose.)
Fourth, my daughter Vreneli made a
slide show out of a generous selection of pictures from our vacation, and with a
borrowed video projector, we showed it here at Faith Assembly this past Sunday,
after the love feast. We wanted to put it on a CD, but when we went to play the
CD, some of the slides did not work as intended. So, it is a challenging task
trying to figure out how to get everything to work directly from a CD.
Those are probably the main
things. I think the head covering issue is the most stressful, because I can see
where it may become a divisive issue, if people are determined that everyone has
to do it exactly the way it was taught before. There is just one problem with
that: there really is not complete agreement on what was important about how it
was taught before! In most cases, sisters wear them for the entire duration of a
meeting: put them on at the beginning, and take them off at the end. But, some
sisters only put them on if they personally are leading in an audible prayer, or
prophesying. Then, there is another whole bag of worms when it comes to the
style of the head covering. On one hand, Brother Freeman clearly said we cannot
dictate a certain, uniform style. On the other hand, he made the point that it
is supposed to be a covering, which seems, in the minds of some sisters,
to indicate that it has to be more than a doily, resulting in what amounts to
specifying a style, and these sisters can be very adamant about it, and think
they are the only ones who really “received” the teaching! My point is, even
among those who staunchly defend the “in church meetings only” position, there
are differences. Yet, as far as I can tell, they seem to tolerate one another.
It bothers me that there might even be a question of forbidding a sister from
wearing the head covering outside of meetings, if that is her desire or
conviction! I am not talking about making a new rule here! Just letting sisters
be led by what they see in the Word from their own personal study!
Then, there is the whole question of the brothers: the
passage includes principles for the men as well as the women. If you try to
apply the principles consistently, then in situations where a man believes it is
mandatory to remove his hat (if he is wearing one), it should be equally
mandatory for the sisters to be putting on their head coverings! And, you know
as well as I do, even out in public, most men remove their hats for prayer.
Frankly, the word mandatory already makes it a law in any situation for either
the man or the woman. If it is not a law, then no man should feel compelled to
take off his hat (nor should any man think it is his responsibility to make sure
other men take theirs off!) for prayer outside the church!
My conclusion is: the passage is there; it cannot be treated
as if it did not exist. But, if I dictate a rule that everyone has to follow,
that is legalism. On the other hand, if I teach the principle, the point of the
passage, and leave it to each woman and man to decide how to apply the
principle, without requiring uniformity either of style or situation, then we
just have to accept others wherever they come out on it. But, isn’t that what we
already do with people “outside our circles”? Would we not protest loudly, “This
is not a rule!” if someone asked us about it? So, it would seem a great shame if
something like this would cause division within our circles! There are many
other issues that are far more serious, where people — even ministers — seem to
have great liberty to dissent from what Brother Freeman taught. I pray that we
will keep our sights set on the important things, but, above all, not let the
enemy divide us in either case!