Flakey Church

What Christian wants to contribute to the Flakey church? Money isn't the subject here. Rather, in a day and age in which people seek every possible avenue to express themselves as spiritually unique, what real Christian should want to encourage them by joining in?

Enough fleeces have been put out to strip every sheep in the world. Gideon would be amazed at what he started and at all the reasons for these fleeces. Chuck Swindoll reported one man saying he would marry his girlfriend if she wore her plaid dress on such and such an occassion. Another man said that if the next four traffic lights were green, he would go off to the mission field. These souls forgot that God sought out Gideon to do a special work. Gideon wanted to make sure it was God talking to him and that God was really on his side. This so-called "putting out the fleece" trivializes our relationship with God. Superstition does not glorify our Heavenly Father. Christians had better wait for God to speak to them directly before they even think about "putting out a fleece."

If we think God audibly speaks to us, then we might first check to see if we have recently taken any medicine with bizarre side effects. Did we injest hallucinogenic mushrooms? Did the message correspond with God's Word in signification and spirit? God does not major in small talk. Did the "word" from God impart something essential for ourselves or others with whom we correspond? Will the message edify our brothers and sisters in Christ? Could it have been a demon playing God? Will the net result of this message be a swelling of our heads? Remember how Paul was raised up to the third Heaven and heard things and saw things too high for mortal ears and eyes? The Lord gave him a "thorn in the flesh" to keep him humble. If God gave a thorn in the flesh (blindness, or polio, or leprosy, or psoriasis, etc.) to everybody who testified that God talked to them or told them to do something, how many people would go around seeking such a manifestation? As long as we are asking all these questions, how many people do you know who God has spoken to? Do you trust them enough to act upon what they have told you?

Supposing your congregation has several people who put out fleeces, who hear God's voice or who talk to angels. Scripture may soon play second fiddle to such exciting revelation. When these people meet, what will be the first thing on their minds? Why, they will be all abuzz to find out who has seen an angel at the foot of their bed or who has seen the Lord's face appear in the clouds. Those without such special revelation will feel like second-class citizens in their local church. Wasn't this the very thing Paul warned people about?

Subjective experiences have become the main drawing card for many charismatic and Pentecostal congregations. People become so hung-up on manifestations and proofs of God's power and presence that the most simple events become infallible proofs that God is blessing His people. God does bless us. He is present. Miracles are performed today just as in the early church, but where does a fixation on such things lead? To minimizing the direct inspiration of the Lord's revealed Word, the Bible.

Pentecostalism becomes flakey when The Bible is only given honorable mention status, when God's Word is insufficient to bring joy and peace to God's children, when we go to church to "see what God will do tonight" rather than coming together to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.

Charismatic leaders really take the cake for being the life of the party. They usually have a word from God and they are ready to share it. "The Lord has revealed to me," or "God showed me something about you," supposedly means God and Pastor so and so have talked. The leader now speaks with the very authority of Almighty God. If we know this to be true, we had better listen closely, act upon what we are hearing. Do we see where manipulation comes in here? One person with this awesome, super, high priestly ability to peer into the hearts of "his flock" can become very God to them--or, at least, their Moses. This reminds me too much of a four or five year old running around hollering about his special powers. The scarey thing is, the four-year old whirlwind and the charismatic preacher may both have unassailable faith in themselves. Flakey leaders pattern flakey followers.

Humility goes out the window of the flakey church. A puffed-up, proud, flakey biscuit church really "gets it on" better than the flapjack type. Just ask them.

The Word in its simplicity has lost its appeal in the modern church. Something new is always coming down. Just like Wendy's or MacDonald's always varying the menus, the church tends to follow suit. One day, yogurt cones and the next, cheesecake. We hear people will get sick of the same old thing. Fresh approaches, repackaging, upscale tempo, diverse delivery systems, appeal to all groups. Whatever happened to the Gospel being the power (dynamite)of salvation? Whatever happened to God's Word being LIFE? Why do we think we can outmaneuver God with our winning techniques? Why do we think that psychology outmasters the Master Teacher, Jesus Christ? The big-headed, proud biscuit church strains to pull God into the 21st century. Stand still and see the Hand of the Lord!

Angels here, angels there, angels, angels everywhere! Flakey! Enough said.

Astrology, channeling, veneration of relics, worship of images, talking to the dead, burning the candles, veneration of saints, working your way up to Heaven, adding books to the 66, indulgences. . . that's not just flakey; its heretical.

How about a commitment statement. Who will sign it? Here it is:

I, _______ ________, seeing that the world--and sometimes something styling itself the church-- strives to defame my Lord by trying to make His Word of no effect, do intend to refrain from flakey practices in my Christian walk. I accept that God is my Commander-in-chief and realize that a good soldier will follow the Manual describing his service. Amen.

Church Growth Movements

We want BIG. Few question the value of BIG centralized schools today. BIG is enough of a reason. No-one wants to question BIG. A Supersized Walmart outside Circleville, Ohio replaced a Walmart less than a half a mile away. The old one probably cost a few million to build, but it sits empty. Why? Why bother to ask.

WORLD MARKET (One World. One Store.) That's how one on-line store bills itself. I predict a huge success there. It may help supply the one world order under the one world dictatorship ruling over the one global community. BIG is simple, easy to hold in the head.

Cities make sense to a lot of people--bigger and bigger and bigger cities with everything convenient and everything inconvenient within easy reach.

Few seem to question the need for big churches. Most ministers want to grow them. Mega churches must often have two, three, or more Sunday morning services to accommodate the worshippers. Like a teacher who can use one prep for several sessions, a minister may preach the same sermon to each new houseful of people. Sometimes this is a stopgap measure before a larger building goes up, but oftentimes the multiple service approach is a matter of local church pride: We have four thousand people! We are a BIG church!

Along with the BIG--usually seeker friendly--style of worship is a well elaborated management team with a thorough policy manual governing all phases of the ministry. Management by objective (MBO) has come of age as anticipated. This is the unquestioned best way to manage people going about the serious business of worship, fellowship, missions, giving, and generally operating in Christ's Kingdom.

It also goes without question that the biggest churches are the ones to model. They must be doing things right. Why? Because they are BIG churches. No need to explain that. Leaders of BIG churches write books about how to build them. Everyone comes to their seminars and buys their books.

Good church growth plans include a wealth of ministries, almost as many ministries as there are hobbies, predilections, age/gender/marital/special interest groups. BIG churches will provide a rich smorgasbord of activities to maintain interest and connectivity to the larger group. Being seeker friendly requires all these ministries. The goal is to make the church the hub for all spiritual and worldly activities so the members will remain tied in to the local body.

In such an organization, much care must be taken that members cooperate to further mutual goals established by the leadership. The greatest sin is disunity or carping against an element, program, direction or management strategy of those in governance. The larger the organization the more vigilance is required to assure compliance with the philosophy, goals, objectives, and overall vision of those in charge. This will require very close personal supervision for some who still have to "mature in the faith." After all, they are neophytes still "on the milk" and not ready "for the meat."

Close attention is given to the content of sermons and lessons. People have not come to church to feel uncomfortable about themselves. They are looking for community, a sense of belonging, of being loved and loving others. They want to make close friends. Disharmony will chase them away before they can appreciate the deeper things of the faith. Preaching about sin, the degradation of mankind, Satan, and an eternity in Hell is certainly not what they want to hear. Such teaching must be deferred till later. How much later? Well . . . we will always have new people coming in . . . so perhaps they . . . . Just remember, if asked,we are a full gospel church. How do we know? Our denominational headquarters says we are.

BIG churches need not shirk on altar calls. Worship services can have invitations for people to come forward and receive Jesus. That's all they need to do, just ask Jesus to come into their hearts and start living a new life and discovering their purpose. Everyone has a purpose. Everyone can get with the program. Pay no attention to those fundamentalists talking about sorrow for sin and the need for repentance. That will scare people away. You won't find any of that kind of language in a Purpose Driven Church. When people read the Bible, they will come across all that negative stuff and know what to do with it, but only after we show them the power in positive imaging and thinking. Shuller didn't get to be as big as he is by carrying on about sin and death and repentance. Go really easy on that kind of stuff in the modern church. That's how to get ahead.

The modern day minister, like Bartholomew Cubbins, must wear a hundred hats. He must cultivate a bedside, graveside, whatever betides side manner. Old people, young people, nice people, grumpy people, smart people, dumb people, must all adore him. As a higher priest he must do all things for all people so that all people will toe the line and be radiantly happy. That is his job. Just because Peter, Paul, James and John didn't do all this doesn't make any difference. We're talking about a latter day minister. Since the Bible doesn't prohibit the pastor serving in all these ways, a modern church board and laity should impose these high and impossible expectations to the hilt. Let the minister do the sacrificing as a representative of the people. That spares the congregation from having guilty consciences for doing nothing at all.

Take a close look at the above priestly delivery of services system if it should interfere with our vision of a really BIG church. (Then again, three or four high priests are more effective than one.)

Just remember that a little church is necessarily anemic. It takes a bunch of people praying to catch God's ear. We need not think that one or two or three people can get through. It is like nuclear fission; it takes critical mass to pray. I'm not sure where the chapter and verse is for that truism, but it seems logical. A BIG church has a big bunch of people continuously praying. Just take my word for it.

A puny congregation can't raise the money to send off a bunch of missionaries either. What did one missionary ever accomplish? I mean, generally speaking. No fair mentioning Bible people or those other fanatics who trust God for everything.

These points should settle the hash of those little store front upstart churches with little drawing power. It takes a big building, lots of people, and a big name preacher to bring 'em in. Identity. That's what's needed. Associate with the with-it church, the church of what's happening now; big oysters grow the biggest most lustrous pearls of great price.

Do you want to meet the movers and shakers in the business and political realms? BIG church is the answer. Doesn't God want to be housed in a magnificent temple worthy of His Glory? BIG church will accomplish that,too. Get with the tide for a first-class religious ride. After you grow really big, then you can do stuff for the down and out, the little people with no drive and no vision. Yes, we mustn't forget the little people, but at first we need to knock on the doors of the successful. They can help us grow to where we can give the little people a hand up.

(This post still under construction, but feel free to post a comment. Perhaps you can provide input for this particular article. If you love BIG churches and what BIG churches do, don't be ashamed to say so. Perhaps you will open my eyes to your vision.) Please remember, though, I'm not saying there are no vibrant, Spirit-filled, full Gospel, huge congregations with God-fearing faithful ministers under the headship of Jesus Christ. I'm talking about man-serving, people-pleasing, dilute the Word and dose it out with an eyedropper, honey and pie, don't rock the titanic, insipid, powerless, psychology of relationships drenched, health and wealth, country club, management by man-made objectives, lost in the clockworks organizations deceptively calling themselves "The Church."

Tiktaalik rosea

Here we go again. Our friends, the evolutionists can't identify this reptile/fish thing they say they've found. It's probably one or the other or something like the platypus God designed to help our fleshbound scientists make fools of themselves. Notice the big-time authority appeal! These souls have credentials from some of the most famous Godless institutions. How could they be wrong?

I like the part about them fulfilling their dreams. Their fondest dream is for intelligent design to disappear, along with the designer and the accountability He requires from the chief creation of His Hands.

God is not mocked; the Tiktaalik rosea doesn't surprise Him. Only a very few thousand years ago, He created the thing some scientists date at three-hundred and seventy-five million years. What a nice ballpark number, rounded to the nearest five million years! Five or ten million is nothing to an evolutionist--just pocket change.

So look at what the big boys and girls discovered for us to debunk during show and tell time! A science museum in South Kensington, England will house a plaster cast of it. Hopefully we won't have any creative sculpting going on.

Tiktaalik (I'll call him a "Tik-tak" for short since the other word is too hard to spell and too hard to swallow)supposedly looks like a fish and an alligator. It lifts its head above the water to breathe. The evolutionists go bonkers over that. Why? The lowly crocodile does the same thing, but nobody makes a big deal out of it. I can't see why this is such a big evolutionary breakthrough, unless this lifting-the-head trick made the denizen of the scum pond start thinking it might become a man. I can imagine another reason why Mr. Tik-tak rubbernecked. Mrs. Tik-tak couldn't tolerate it, either. Those other "sheilas" on the bank may have had that "come hither look" in their crocodilian eyes.

We know the coelecanth went down the tube as the water-to-land missing link. People still catch and eat him. Tik-tak seems like a suitable replacement fossil. If one big lie doesn't reel in the gullible, then change the bait. Tik-tak could play or prey upon the popular imagination for decades if the God haters do it right. They could make sure newspapers all over the world carry the "news" about Tik-tak. They've already done that. Check. Now they will persuade book publishers to put it in our public school science books. That should be easy. No matter if we easily debunk the thing for the fraud it certainly is, the damage will have been done. College texts will also perpetuate the myth. Religion does not go away so easily.

Interestingly, archaeopteryx, "the famous fossil which bridged the gap between reptiles and birds" is cited as an icon of evolution. Evolutionists insist Tik-tak is another such icon. It is a dream come true because they must realize they have no other verifiable transition forms. Archaeopteryx is a famous fraud. They shouldn't even mention it in the same breath with their new toy unless they want sensible people to wake up and smell their latest con.



Sin Again


Here they go again;
Ideas full of bull again;
Tik-tak a delusional sin,
An offense against God.

They flubbed on archaeopteryx,
Coelecanth and other tricks.
They think we're a bunch of hicks?
Methinks I smell a fraud.

Tik-tak is what it is,
Fish or reptile schiz,
Tadpole or big liz--
All anyone can say.

Real bones or plaster cast,
Still alive or didn't last,
Won't we have one big laugh,
To find Tic-tac's DNA?

Piltdown man, and Heidelburg,
Neanderthal, and more absurd,
Will they find a hummingbird,
Becoming an ornithopter?

Evolutionism is a religion
Holding God in derision,
Apoplexed by our decision,
To take all God can offer.

Created to do what it did do well--
No progeny to think,compute or spell,
Or choose the path to Heaven or Hell--
Christ with a word made flesh and bone.


Tik-tak knew to mind its place,
No way akin to the human race.
It won't have to hide its face
In shame before God's throne.



Speculation and imagination aside, what do the evolutionist's have? It doesn't move. It doesn't tell a story. The continuum of other transitional forms are nowhere in sight. Tik-tak requires these if he's to ever stand on his own two feet and be a man. It never happened! Scientists will find many generations of his offspring looking just like him, give or take tiny differences due to natural selection (We can even acknowledge "micro-evolution.")

Intelligent design? Obviously.

Similar design for different creatures? Of course; same Designer.

How long did it take to make everything we see? Six earth days.

Can real scientists really believe this, given all the discoveries of paleontologists and anthropologists? Sure. Thousands of them do and do it strongly.

But what about all the fossil evidence? Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence to test with their instruments and their senses. Tik-tak belongs to all of us, not just to evolutionists. God created Tik-tak for our use and we will use his bones to glorify the Creator, not to rebel against Him.



The old, old, old story in the same old evolutionist style:



Scientists have made one of the most important fossil finds in history: a missing link between fish and land animals, showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago.

Palaeontologists have said that the find, a crocodile-like animal called the Tiktaalik roseae and described today in the journal Nature, could become an icon of evolution in action - like Archaeopteryx, the famous fossil that bridged the gap between reptiles and birds.

As such, it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design, who claim that the many gaps in the fossil record show evidence of some higher power. Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, said: "Our emergence on to the land is one of the more significant rites of passage in our evolutionary history, and Tiktaalik is an important link in the story."

Tiktaalik - the name means "a large, shallow-water fish" in the Inuit language Inuktikuk - shows that the evolution of animals from living in water to living on land happened gradually, with fish first living in shallow water. The animal lived in the Devonian era lasting from 417m to 354m years ago, and had a skull, neck, and ribs similar to early limbed animals (known as tetrapods), as well as a more primitive jaw, fins, and scales akin to fish. The scientists who discovered it say the animal was a predator with sharp teeth, a crocodile-like head, and a body that grew up to 2.75 metres (9ft) long.

"It's very important for a number of reasons, one of which is simply the fact that it's so well-preserved and complete," said Jennifer Clack, a paleontologist at Cambridge University and author of an accompanying article in Nature. Scientists have previously been able to trace the transition of fish into limbed animals only crudely over the millions of years they anticipate the process took place. They suspected that an animal which bridged the gap between fish and land-based tetrapods must have existed - but, until now, there had been scant evidence of one.

"Tiktaalik blurs the boundary between fish and land-living animal both in terms of its anatomy and its way of life," said Neil Shubin, a biologist at the University of Chicago, and a leader of the expedition which found Tiktaalik. The near-pristine fossil was found on Ellesmere Island, Canada, which is 600 miles from the north pole in the Arctic Circle. Scientists from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, the University of Chicago, and Harvard University led several expeditions into the inhospitable icy desert to search for the fossils.
The find is the first complete evidence of an animal that was on the verge of the transition from water to land. "The find is a dream come true," said Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences. "We knew that the rocks on Ellesmere Island offered a glimpse into the right time period and were formed in the right kinds of environments to provide the potential for finding fossils documenting this important evolutionary transition."

When Tiktaalik lived, the Canadian Arctic region was part of a land mass which straddled the equator. Like the Amazon basin today, it had a subtropical climate and the animal lived in small streams. The skeleton indicates that it could support its body under the force of gravity.

Farish Jenkins, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University said: "This represents a critical early phase in the evolution of all limbed animals, including humans - albeit a very ancient step." Tiktaalik also gives biologists a new understanding of how fins turned into limbs. Its fin contains bones that compare to the upper arm, forearm and primitive parts of the hand of land-living animals.
"Most of the major joints of the fin are functional in this fish," Professor Shubin said. "The shoulder, elbow and even parts of the wrist are already there and working in ways similar to the earliest land-living animals."

Dr Clack said that, judging from the fossil, the first evolutionary transition from sea to land probably involved learning how to breathe air. "Tiktaalik has lost a series of bones that, in fishes, covers the gill region and helps to operate the gill-breathing mechanism," she said. "The air-breathing mechanism it had would have been elaborated and having lost the series of bones that lies between the head and the shoulder girdle means it's got a neck, it can raise its head more easily in order to gulp the air. "The flexible robust limbs appear to be connected with pushing the head out of the water to breathe the air."

H. Richard Lane, director of sedimentary geology and palaeobiology at the US National Science Foundation, said: "These exciting discoveries are providing fossil Rosetta stones for a deeper understanding of this evolutionary milestone - fish to land-roaming tetrapods."

A cast of the fossil goes on display at the Science Museum in South Kensington central London today.

Sainthood

Catholics may do whatever they choose to do with their own Popes as they pursue their own religion. Certainly, on a physical level, it would seem like the conferring of sainthood upon John Paul hurts no-one. We could hardly put it on the same level as the Taliban suppression of women or suicide bombing of innocent people in the name of Allah. Of more moment in a discussion of sainthood, however, is whether such a tradition squares with truth, and whether we have a God-given mandate to reprove evil.

We must first dispense with the idea that truth becomes irrelevant to discussions of faith. Some of us rebel at the thought of blind faith. Perhaps we recognize where that may lead. We know the blind lead the blind and they all fall into the ditch. No. Blind faith will never do. You must convince us of the validity and reliability of what you teach us. Does it stand up under the stress of old and new evidence? Is it internally consistent in major and minor details? Has it been believed upon by unprejudiced minds, brilliant minds, and ordinary seekers of truth over a long period of time? To what do we attribute the longevity of the espoused truth? Is there another system or world view obviously superior to the one we hold.

A college building at OSU has this message: "Some prize the doubt others live without." It would seem that prizing doubt mentally places one in a locked room with no windows, exactly the condition doubters accuse people of having who believe in absolute truths. To use another analogy, how can a person build a building if he or she never trusts the integrity of the stones necessary to raise the foundation? Isn't this what the Bible says about the Jews who rejected Christ? They distrusted the stone that was to become "the head of the corner." In discarding Jesus as the Messiah, they could not build anything to please their Father in Heaven. They had a wrongheaded mindset; their doubt programmed them for failure.

For the above reasons, we have to start our discussion of the last Pope's sainthood with the idea that we can know what we know and can even give concrete reasons for the knowing.

The Christian Bible recognizes ecclesiastical roles such as teacher, deacon, or pastor, but avoids special tags for qualities of spirituality. Those who pride themselves on spiritual titles receive short shrift with Jesus. Only One is "Father." He forbade bestowing that exhalted spiritual title on anyone but Jehovah (God can't receive it by conferral, anyhow. He is Who He is).

Jesus reminded those who liked to be called rabbi or master that they needed a more excellent qualifier appended to their name--that of "servant." Who can forget the King of Kings and Lord of Lords removing His garments and washing his disciples feet and wiping them dry? Make that a requirement for selecting a president, governor, or senator and we might have leaders with a great deal more capacity for serving well.

According to the scriptures we may call all those washed in the blood of Jesus Christ "saints." It is actually a special name for everyone born into the kingdom of God. We may use it as freely for the hour-old convert as for the elderly minister or missionary toiling away in the heart of India or Africa. God insists it be like that. He is no respecter of persons. Our works are our "reasonable" or expected service; not a merit system which earns super spiritual status and exhalted titles. One simply can't miss this point in the Bible. It is one of those obvious points that even our spiritually myopic, on the milk Christians should never miss. Saints and Christians are interchangeable names. Old and New Testament writers from Deuteronomy to Revelation use the word to describe followers of God just short of one-hundred times. It denotes born again citizens of God's universal church in the New Testament, and people devoted to God's leading in the Old Testament.

According to Strong's Concordance, "saint," or "saints" only occurs as a noun, not as an adjective. "Saintly" isn't listed. Obviously, saying a saint excercised saintly behavior would be redundant, much like saying a soldier is soldierly or a president is presidential. Adjectivilization of "saint" never seems to occur in the sixty-six books of the Bible. Perhaps it does in apocryphal books, but that is like looking through a pile of counterfeit currency for enough money to buy a new hat. It would seem that Saint Paul or Saint Jude or Saint Peter is not authorized usage--at least not authorized by anything other than man's penchant for comparing people, even in degrees of holiness. The positive, comparative, and superlative forms of holy would be holy, more holy, and most holy. Saintly, more saintly, and most saintly would be the parallel under discussion in this article.

I wonder where each of us would sit if someone labeled the chairs or pews in our church "THE HOLY, THE MORE HOLY, and THE MOST HOLY next Sunday! (Please leave a place for yours truly on the floor even though the positive form is authorized.) How about THE SAINTLY, THE MORE SAINTLY, and THE MOST SAINTLY?

Although some of us sometimes say "saint" in front of fellow Christian names, we notice it doesn't feel quite right. Our scripture knowledge-base kicks in. We can't cite anywhere in the Bible the Lord uses such words, nor do any of His writers. The Holy Spirit gives us an elbow when we violate obvious Biblical principles. At the same time, we don't cringe at talking about the "assembly of the saints" or visiting the home of a certain "saint." Those concerned about walking and talking in God's will, carefully weigh how they refer to their brothers and sisters in Christ.

The man-made tradition of declaring sainthood based upon numbers of miracles performed, doing charity work, or mission work focuses on works, but worse than this, it weighs people against other people. Such weighing flies in the face of repeated teaching about humility and service. It offends the very spirit of God's grace. It ought not to be!

Along with the special creation of saints comes the veneration of relics associated with these saints, forbidden graven images of these people, praying to dead "saints," and a replacement kind of religion in which Jesus disappears under a pile of cultic traditions. Where people directly oppose plain truths of God we can expect to see utter confusion and ruin, superstition, hopelessness that infects families through generations. The antidote is Truth corroborated by the Holy Spirit.

How should Christians respond to the sainthood question? They should never minimize the fruit of disobedience. Eve eating from the forbidden tree doesn't seem like much until we see the consequences for her rebellion. If we approve of such departures from God's will for others, we become accessories.

Still, some will recommend we cool our ardor for meddling in the business of another faith. Their welfare becomes someone else's business. We wash our hands of their bad decisions. They don't go to our church, so let their ecclesiastical body deal with them. How do we call that love?

The practice of conferring sainthood is not Biblical, not authorized, and is fraught with attendant evils. It is in the news big-time at present. How will we respond when others talk about it? Our answers will define our faith in God's Word and our willingness to be salt and light in a mixed-up world. Love requires upholding the truth even when we ellicit anger and censure. Silence is acquiescence.

Cults abound. Silence helps them proliferate. Does a good shepherd remain silent when the wolf steals his sheep? Neither should ministers of God's Word.