Taxes for Jesus? ...

Not talking about tithes, they are an opportunity to share in the ministry of redemption with Jesus.  Tithes are asked of your increase (to remind you that you experience increase).  Tithes help you prioritize the value of what is important to you – hint: if money is what is important, you are missing quite a lot.  Then there are offerings.  Offerings are as the base of the word implies, an offer, of your treasure back to God from the free will choice of your heart.  You give to Him whatever you see fit to give.  You are not constrained to any limits of 10%, so no gift from you is too small, or too large.  It is only a reflection of your heart as you give it.  The joy you experience doing that, is a joy you alone can realize, and God alone can share as your heart shines open to Him.  Your gift is never made fun of.  It is never ridiculed.  It is never wasted.  It changes your heart each time you give it.  Repeated giving has a profound effect on you, and if it is accompanied by joy you feel from doing it, even more so.  If you would rather keep your treasure than give it, or giving it makes you angry, the sacrifice is not truly an offering.  Keep it.  Hold on to it; and realize the futility of trying to hold on to something as fleeting as treasure.  Give it; and learn to experience that giving is truly better than receiving, and far better than hoarding.  But tithes and offerings are not anywhere near the category of taxes.

Taxes are non-negotiable.  Taxes are certain (like the death they inevitably represent).  Taxes are imposed usually by governmental, or controlling entities interested in the preservation of power.  Taxes are not part of the system of government of heaven.  In heaven, people will long to find another way to give something more of themselves they have not thought to give already.  Ideas will be exercised full time in trying to give more, and make the lives of someone else in heaven, just a bit happier (as if that was possible).  No one will ask you to.  You will do it, because you cannot bear to do otherwise.  This is how God does it.  When you come in closer harmony with Him, it will rub off on you as well.  So in heaven, there is no need for even the concept of taxation.  But in this world, the devil is duly pleased with implementing as harsh a method of taxes as he can impose.  Taxes are never pleasant, usually wasted, utterly futile, and always too high.  So who could have imagined imposing a system of taxation in the name of Jesus?  Church leadership, that’s who. 

Matthew records an incident in his gospel to the Hebrews in chapter seventeen of just such a thing.  Let us take a second look at it and see what lessons may be hiding in these few verses.  Picking up in verse 24 it begins … “And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?”  Ouch.  To begin, the Temple at Jerusalem was more than just the physical place idealized by the nation as the best place to worship God.  It was also a symbolic seat of power.  What should have been dedicated to God alone, had become corrupted by the politics of trying to run a nation.  Sound familiar?  We need only turn on any news outlet today, and see where the influence of protestant churches attempts to influence the policy of the USA.  Catholics as well, continue to look to influence policies in nations all across the world.  It would seem, Christianity, which should have been a thing left to the pure worship of Christ, has now also become a symbolic power of political influence.

And where there is politics, and where there is power of any kind, there must also be funding to keep it so.  Thus a system of taxation is imposed for the maintenance of the Temple (or at least in theory that what it might be used for).  But then, have you ever known any kind of tax to be used on the thing it is supposed to be used on?  And more likely, have you seen taxes seem to find there way into the pockets of those in power, be they in the church, or out of it.  Here in this system of taxation, yet again the Sanhedrin looks for a way to trip up Jesus.  If Jesus refuses to pay the tax; they will claim He does not care about the upkeep of the Temple.  If He pays it, then He shows humility or deference to the Temple, and by proxy, to them.

Since Capernaum was Peter’s home town, the tax masters approach Peter, hoping to embarrass him when Jesus refuses (or at least that is what they expected).  Matthew continues in verse 25 saying … “He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?”  Jesus however, had a different lesson to teach.  Instead of focusing on making the tax they asked for, He poses an entirely different question, about ownership.  Jesus divides the audience for tax payers into two camps, the children of the King, and strangers to the King.  He then asks Peter who the King is likely to taxes from, His own children, or total strangers.  Look closely my brothers and sisters, Jesus is here putting you into a classification you might forget you belong to.

Matthew continues in verse 26 saying … “Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.”  Peter responds what common sense calls for, a King would take taxes from strangers, never from His own kids.  Jesus then makes a very profound statement – Then are the children free.  You are not a stranger to your King, He calls you His child, and loves you so, and treats you so.  The children are provided for by the King.  The children eat because the King puts His food on their tables.  They wear the clothes the King has seen fit to dress them with (one day this will include a robe of righteousness none of us deserve, but all of us receive washed clean in the blood of our King).  The children need not concern themselves with how they survive, for the King takes care of ALL these worries.  It would stand to reason then, with our survival insured by our King, we are free to give of ourselves completely, without fear or regret.  To mirror for others what our King chooses to do in the great love of His kids.  Religious taxes are an anachronism we need not be bothered with.  However even free children must concern themselves with helping others come to Jesus to find freedom.

Matthew continues in verse 27 saying … “Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.”  Jesus ultimately paid the tax (for all of us), not because He needed to, but because He was free to.  Jesus was more interested in trying to find a way to the tax master’s heart, than He was about making a principled stand on why He did not need to pay this tax.  So He creates a miracle, where money, gold that is, is found in a random fish Peter catches in his hometown Sea of Galilee shores.  I imagine something that had never been done before.  The tax masters bear witness to the miracles of Jesus, even though they never asked for a sign.  The tax was still unfair.  But Jesus paid it.  He did not argue, or raise arms, or hold a revolution.  He did not even try to make sure His next church would never be consumed with thinking about these kinds of things again.  He just went the extra mile.  Because He still craved for the soul of those assigned to collect the taxes, and those wicked enough to dream up that system.

Jesus does not check back up on this tax, to see if it was used rightly.  He knows it will likely never be used rightly.  He is intentionally giving funds to those intent on killing Him.  They may wind up converting this gold coin into several silver ones, that one day briefly line the pockets of Judas who will betray Him over it.  That gold coin may instead have found its way into Roman pockets, funding a spear that would one day pierce His side, or a cross He would one day hang upon.  Where His tax money went was STILL not His concern.  The life of the tax master was.  Life was more important than money.  A pathway to the heart more important that asserting His freedom not to pay.  He did what was not required, because His treasure is in hearts reconciled to Himself.  A silly gold coin was not going to get in the way of that.

And where are we today in how we value our money, and our gold?  Have our Christian churches decided we must defend ourselves, in effect, choosing to take on the role of the King, rather than trusting in the King to do what His love demands of Him.  Have we lost trust in our King, choosing to fight to live, rather than trust that our King has our eternal lives in His hands, and our earthly ones as well.  Have we told ourselves it is our “job” to “provide” for our families, and look to our King, only when we don’t believe we have enough money to get the job done.  We fight to hold on to our taxes, to keep as much as we can.  If not from our churches (and some treat tithes and offerings, not much different than taxation), then from our governments.  And we never once consider trying to find pathways to any heart outside of our own.  We develop a spirit of fighting to keep what is rightfully ours.  And in this spirit, we try to keep those other Christians who may disagree with our beliefs, away from us.  We reason we must fight the devil, and since they do not agree, they must be with the devil.  Yet all of us claim to follow Christ.  And there was no fight in Christ, to keep what was His, not even His life.  He gave all, to reach all, to reach me, and you.

Perhaps our churches today, could abandon ideas of influence and power, leaving behind the provinces of Satan.  Perhaps instead we could hone our skills in loving others, trying to give more of ourselves to others, to meeting needs anywhere and everywhere – without fear, or regret.  In this we would enter the provinces of Jesus, and find a King already there, working so hard already, now looking for those of us who are ready to join with Him, in the ministry of finding a pathway to hearts.  Even if that means we lose a few things along the way or give up what should not be required.  At the end of it all, the real treasure, is the treasure of souls.  Gold is nothing but pavement for city streets, worth nothing more than gravel is today.  But the feet that may one day walk on it, are priceless.

 

Book of Signs ... John the Baptist (witness number one) ...

In chapter one and verse 19, John our author transitions from the prologue describing the Messiah and very essence of salvation, to the “proof” or the “evidence” that our writer was witness to.  John begins his witness, not with the birth of Christ, or His lineage, or His early adult life, as it appears John either did not know Him in those things, or was not aware of Him during those periods of this life.  But John, later referred to as “the beloved” began his own account of the divinity of our Savior where he first remembers encountering Him, at the ministry of John the Baptist.

 

Our author John picks up in verse 19 with a conversation between the servants (or spies) of the religious leadership and John the Baptist whose ministry had become famous and whose message now stood in conflict with current church policy.  For the traditions of the church had focused on the removal of sins, in the symbols that were designed to point forward to the Messiah, instead of in the transformation away from sin, that our God had intended.  John the Baptist preached repentance.  He called for a change within his listeners, and a public baptism to reflect this decision to change.  John did not spend his time building sacrificial altars, and slaying sheep, doves, and other sacrifices.  He could not be corrupted by selling the meat that would come from this practice, nor by accepting the financial tithes and offerings of his listeners.  He ate what he found in the wilderness.  His clothing consisted of what could be fashioned in the wilderness.  He did not seek to keep his appearance in the latest styles, or best attire.  Instead his entire ministry was designed around preaching of repentance, and preparing the way of the Lord.

John did not speak against the laws or traditions of Moses.  However, he did not focus on the traditions that had been corrupted by the greed of religious leaders, and instead zoomed in completely on the hearts of Israel.  John did not rail against the Roman oppressors, nor speak the truth of how corrupt their government was, and how difficult it was to serve God under their pagan regime.  John was not a political activist of any kind.  As such the Romans had no interest in him, outside of crowd control.  The priests however could not keep so silent.  The message of John had gained national fame.  The reach of the crazy man in the desert baptizing with water, but whose sermons carried the fire of the Holy Spirit had reached the ears of those who ran the temple systems.  King Herod himself knew the power of the words of John and was reluctant to “deal” with him.  John was cutting in to the temple profit machine, by eliminating the “need” for sacrifice.  If I desire sin no more, I need less lambs to cover my otherwise evil intents.  When I change the focus of my life from slavery to evil, to surrender to God, the transformation reforms what my heart wants, and then what my hands do.  This transformation was what God intended all along, and what his current leadership had all but abandoned.

So the priests sent spies to ask John the Baptist who he was.  Had John claimed to be the Messiah, they might have been able to write him off as just another self-deluded nut case, screaming blasphemy in the desert, but John made no such claim.  Just to be sure, they asked him if he was Isaiah, or Elijah risen from the dead.  Keep in mind, half the leadership of the Sanhedrin did not actually believe in resurrection, so even if he were; and claimed to be a risen prophet, half the men asking the question would have again written him off as an eccentric nut, crying in the wilderness.  But John made no claim to be a risen prophet; instead his responses to their inquiry centered on his mission, and the immediacy of the mission of the Messiah that was to follow his work.  John felt the passion, of his work.  John knew the time was at hand.  This was no far off fairy tale to John.  It was a real, immediate need to see Israel get the word – “NOW” was the time to repent.  In verses 19-28 John’s entire conversation in response to their demands of who he was, was a return to the attention that the Messiah was already here.

In verse 26, John offers perhaps the most biting rebuke of the current priests and leaders of the Jewish faith … “there standeth one among you, whom ye know not.”  Of all the people who should have been the most prepared to recognize and worship the Messiah, were the ones who dedicated their lives to studying the prophecies and words, and intentions of His laws.  If would be like having a baseball statistician who dedicated his life to knowing every player, on every team, in every year since the sport began, fail to recognize Babe Ruth, or Hank Aaron.  And even when introduced to perhaps Baseball’s most famous celebrity, and see a demonstration of his skills, still refuse to accept the idea of who he was.  Here were the priests who knew all the requirements of prophecy the Messiah would have to fulfill.  Here were the same folks who only 18 short years ago, spent three days in the temple at Passover, being taught by a 12 year old child, whose truth was so compelling they could not turn away from it.  They had been captivated by this young man, yet for whatever reason had lost sight of Him.  His birth in Bethlehem, his sojourn to Egypt, his raising in Nazareth, all fulfillments of prophecy the priests should have been the first to recognize, yet were completely oblivious to.

But before we become too pious in our own eyes, I wonder if we would do any better in recognizing Christ within in our own church walls.  Would our instinct be to turn around and look through the pews for the best dressed believer in the room?  Would we expect at a minimum good personal hygiene with perfectly trimmed hair, a shaved face, and clean attire?  Would we expect at least a steady employment, a community contributor who works, pays taxes, and keeps the laws of man, and the traditions of our faith whatever they may be?  Or could we see the face of God, in the homeless man who is reluctant to enter our doors?  As for personal possessions, Christ had none more than the clothing on His back.  He was homeless by choice.  His only occupation was the redemption message He came to bring to the world, not the traditional employment we expect of a peer.  He ate what He could find, or what He was offered.  He may have kept Himself as clean as His circumstances allowed, but His circumstances resided in the great outdoors.  And finally His adherence to the traditions His own church leaders had corrupted and lost sight of, did not support their misguided ideas.  Instead He was forever trying to lead them back to the meaning of the law of love, instead of what they traditionally taught.  As such, He did not fit the “mold” of the Messiah they expected.  And as such, He might not fit ours either.  Thus John calls attention to the fact, that they were missing the very Messiah they as a nation had so longed for.

And surprise, in verse 29 … “the next day” John the Baptist sees Jesus and declares … “behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.”  Talk about being right on point.  John whose ministry bore the stamp of the fire of the Holy Spirit declares in one short breath, the true nature of the Messiah of Israel and the world.  He does not say … look everyone, here is the guy who will over throw the yoke of Roman oppression and restore the glory of Israel like back in the days of King David.  This was the most popular conception of the Messiah, and one his closest followers would secretly harbor in their own hearts right up to the time of His death.  That was the conqueror, the priests longed to see.  But that was not the image John referenced to the work of the Messiah.  The “lamb” was ALWAYS the one who was SLAIN for the forgiveness of sin.  The “lamb” never made it out alive in the religion of Israel.  A beast without blemish or spot, innocent of any wrong doing, too young to even have lived a rewarding life, was killed to remind all Israel what sin does to the young, to the innocent, and to the hearts of man when we choose to embrace it.  Lambs die.  They do not conquer Roman oppressors, or restore glory to a nation in decline.  They die.  That is their purpose.  And so in order to redeem us from the sins and evil we have daily chosen to embrace, our Savior would come and pay our punishment.  John hereby declares the mission and the true glory of the Messiah as the “lamb of God.”

It is not supposed to be easy to kill such an innocent trusting creature as a lamb.  Indeed it was designed to rend the heart of the sinner, and bring to him a full realization of the price of evil.  The sacrificial system was supposed to illustrate in physical terms what sin leads to – all sin – there was no distinction between the various sins, all would eventually require sacrifice or blood to make atonement for.  And it was not supposed to make hearts grow callous to the plight of lambs then, any more than forgiveness is an excuse for modern day Christians to commit repeated sins that require the blood of our Savior to forgive today.  Death is the result of sin; death of the perpetrator, often death of the victim.  In this case, it is the death of Christ in our stead that becomes the vehicle to satisfy justice, and prove to the universe once and for all that love is greater than justice.  Be that as it may, for a sinner in Israel, no less than for me each time I stray away from God and into sin today, blood would be paid for my redemption, and on my behalf.

Verses 31 thru 34 appear to show that John had already baptized Jesus by this time.  Jesus had already been to the wilderness for 40 days and nights of famine and fasting and temptation.  Despite the effects that such a prolonged fast would have on the body of our Lord, John is undeterred in his recognition of Christ.  John was not looking for a rock star, or a fashion idol, or a celebrity.  He was looking for God, and he found Him.  John recalls as if it was just yesterday, the account of the baptism of Christ, when John and all the witnesses present at that time saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting over the head of Christ.  It was at that time, that others (Matt 3:17) would recount the very words of God, who said … “this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”  This was no small day to John, it was the pinnacle height of his ministry.  He would have no better day.  He would see no better evidence that God was truly among us.  And it would stay with him like no other memory.  Undeterred by human appearances, John recognizes Christ and calls Him out to the crowd.

John the Baptist offers a first-hand account of his own beliefs based on what he has seen related to Jesus.  That in fact Jesus is … “the Son of God.”  Those who would dispute the divinity of Christ, must now discount the work of John the Baptist entirely.  For John had no doubts as to the divinity or work the Messiah was to perform.  This was no ordinary teacher, no ordinary prophet, no ordinary religious icon, this was the literal very real, Son of God; the only one God has.  John does not refer to Christ as “a” son of God, but as “the” Son of God.  John was calling distinction to the divinity of Christ, not offering Christ as just another Christian brother in the faith.  Muslims like the idea of Christ being a great prophet, but do not like the idea of God having a literal son.  Yet here is the first evidence, and perhaps most important evidence that Christ was truly divine.  Even ignoring His virgin birth, an angelic choir bursting forth in the night sky singing what I could only imagine was nothing short of phenomenally, His miraculous escape from Herod’s slaughter, and preserved life of anonymity in Nazareth – a great many, including John witnessed the words of God Himself – declaring Jesus to be the Son in whom He was well pleased.  With a physical manifestation of the Spirit of God in the form of a dove who descended on the head of Christ to be the final stamp of divine approval from the throne room of God Himself.  John the Baptist saw this, and declared it publicly to those who were there when He sees Jesus again.

Now for some reason, Andrew and John our author, did not immediately follow Christ that first day.  Perhaps Christ slipped away in the crowds.  Perhaps the disciples could not get their heads around what John the Baptist was saying.  Perhaps Christ wanted them to see that John was not just having an emotional reaction to Jesus, but was in fact sure this was Him.  So Christ came back again the second day, and John again declares in verse 36 … “Behold the lamb of God”.  This time, there was not going to be a delay, this time John our author, and Andrew decided to immediately go and follow Christ.  Notice that John the Baptist made no effort to deter them.  He was not jealous, but instead happy.  This was why John called out to declare the Messiah to the crowd in the first place.  Like the angels who announced His birth because they could remain silent no longer, John the Baptist cries out to the crowd, “Behold”.  The mission of John had reached its zenith, the Messiah was no longer a future tense item.  He was here.  He was real.  His ministry was beginning, and so even at its earliest founding.  John our author, declares that Jesus Christ had the full faith and confidence of John the Baptist as the Messiah, and as the only Son of God.

 

The Purpose of Beliefs ...

It is an amazing phenomenon that while each Christian should be submitting their will to Christ and thus be led by Him to His truth, in His time, in His way – there are as many as 38,000 different denominations of churches who claim to follow Christ. At heart all Christians should be united in principles of love for each other, service to others, and submission to Christ – yet there remain differences that keep us segregated. Past the basics of salvation, could anything else be important enough to keep us apart? The call to preach the gospel to the entire world consisted of the teaching of Salvation (i.e. Christ’s death and resurrection on our behalf). It was combined with specific instructions to love one another as a witness to the world. On these principles most Christians seem to agree, so what remains to keep us so differentiated?

Doctrines appear to be the culprit. Doctrines are the accepted statements of belief of a given religious organization. They are designed to illuminate truth and make it clear to understand. They are usually constructed around a single topic or similar set of ideas and are put together to help both new and older members of a church to understand why a church teaches what it does. In fairness, Salvation itself is a doctrine of most Christian Churches. So of course not all doctrines are wrong by design. But then how do so many variations develop, and why do they persist over time? If Christ leads, why do doctrines differ? It is a conundrum not easily answered. It gives an Atheist a plausible response to a call from Christianity, to say – which version is “the” version?

Of course the simplistic answer is that whatever church I belong to is the “one” being led by Christ, with “all” the others simply mistaken in their interpretations of doctrines. But this logic quickly falls apart as no consistency can be applied with it. Many churches share doctrines with each other. It is not as if all 38,000 churches have completely unique applications of scripture. Many share history, traditions, philosophies, and ideas about God that inevitably leads to shared teachings or doctrines. But the ones that differ tend to be the ones that make a denomination distinct.

History and tradition play a role in this. New churches seem to spring up over differences in doctrines with a parent organization. The differences may be subtle and seemingly meaningless over a long term, but nonetheless they are an effective catalyst to see new denominations spring up. Catholics like to claim that they are the original Christian church, descending from the Apostle Peter himself right through to today. They credit their mere longevity as a sign from God that they are the “one” true church with every protestant Christian denomination as merely erring children who refuse to come home. Catholics maintain that salvation can only be found through membership in its organization, though this exclusionary teaching can be found in many other organizations as well.

Of course just because a church claims something to be true does not make it so. The Catholic Church formally began in about 300AD under Emperor Constantine who blended Roman pagan traditions of the day into the current Christian religion and formed a singular religious belief system later titled Catholicism. Constantine therefore would have been the first formal Pope, although Bishops existed in Christianity prior to Constantine and Catholicism. In point of fact, upon Christ’s ascension, the head of the early Christian church was based in Jerusalem until its destruction. The destruction of Jerusalem pushed Christianity into Asia Minor and around the Middle Eastern world, including both Rome and Constantinople. Later the leadership of the early Christian church seemed to divide into factions based in Rome in the West, and Constantinople in the East. Eventually this eastern group split from those in the west forming the first splintering of Christianity.

But at the same time a group of believers carrying the name Waldensians copied scripture by hand and disseminated it to the people in native languages. This practice was severely forbidden by the Catholic Church and as such, they hunted the Waldensians to exterminate them over hundreds of years, but without success. After more than 1200 years, the reformation began in earnest with leaders like Huss and Jerome, and Martin Luther. They split from the Catholic Church over the basic doctrine of Salvation itself. Protestants would have remained Catholic if the church would have revised its view of how Salvation is obtained (through Christ alone, not through the purchase of absolutions). But as the Vatican believed itself to be infallible, it would not accept change on matters of doctrine, and tried hard to extinguish the lives of these early reformers. They failed. And Protestant churches began springing up all over Europe.

It took many centuries of persecution to enjoy the religious freedoms we have today. When the Catholic Church held both religious and political power, it used this power to attempt to enforce its version of morality on the rest of the world. It killed millions during the inquisitions, and persecuted by practice anyone who challenged its ideas on faith, science, or morality. This object lesson would be well spent on today’s Protestant churches who continue to seek political power to unite with religion once again. Power does not help a Christian church, it corrupts it. Men are not equipped to wield power very well, when combined with religious fervor; it is a recipe for the murder of millions.

Sometime later a doctrine arose within many protestant churches that Christ would return in October 1844. The teaching of the cleansing of the temple prophecy carried worldwide acclaim and was taught with regularity in many different versions of Christianity. A great religious revival preceded the target return date for Christ’s second coming, but when it failed to materialize, most left their respective faiths, or resumed a nominal relationship with Christ and the church. Out of this great disappointment, members from the Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches continued to study the prophecy to determine where they were wrong. The results developed into yet another new church entitled “Seventh Day Adventists”. This example of believers coming from different doctrinal backgrounds and holding to new teachings has been a common phenomenon in Christianity and is why we see so many denominations today.

Credit where credit is due, Catholics recognized that the multiplicity of Christian Churches does not reflect well on Christ and so started a movement back in the early 1970’s to reunite churches back into the fold. This Ecumenical movement was based on uniting Christianity around its basic common denominator (Christ) and leaving doctrinal differences as much less important. This effort has had some success, but the sheer number of remaining Christian denominations is a testament to the segregating power of doctrinal ideas.

Then enter the fanatics. In an effort to preserve the hierarchical power structure of a given religious organization, parishioners are taught to both live and die by their adherence to the specific doctrines of the church. The concept of Salvation itself is broadened to include obedience by its membership to ALL of the teachings that a particular church espouses. Thus what was originally designed to bring people closer to God by revealing truth, become tools to maintain a power structure within a religious organization. Why does this occur? The same reason it occurs in countries, governments, and companies, because it is usually accompanied with significant financial implications. Power and wealth are huge human motivators that work on our frailty, appealing to our base nature to serve self. When done in a religious construct we rationalize that the greater good is served by maintaining the “good” work of the church. Even if maintaining it, means adopting a dogmatic, if not fanatical approach to teaching its doctrines. We can rationalize almost any behavior including murder when done for God’s glory and honor. Though in reality, it is nothing more than our rationalization for self-service done in the name of our God – a blasphemy of every basic Christian teaching clearly taught in our Bibles.

So which religious organizations are guilty of participating in this kind of behavior? Unfortunately, almost ALL of them. And while you may take the word “almost” as meaning that “your” church as never done anything like this; consider that is how every Christian responds, and we know that this cannot be true. Any Christians who doubt this idea, should go talk to a Native American Indian such as the Mohawks, Mohicans, or the hundreds of other tribes wiped out in the name of “civilizing the savages by bringing them Christianity”. Those that still doubt, ask yourself this question – if obedience to ALL of your churches teachings is NOT so important why does your church never seem to evolve its doctrine? Why does it take the creation of a new church or the splitting of an existing one to embrace “new” truth? Hierarchies tend to have highly developed self-preservational instincts even if not by specific intent. While the financial rivers flow, denominations seem to defend their distinct identities.

So how do we fix it? How do we teach truth without compromise, yet break down the barriers between Christians that carry different sub-names? It begins with absolute humility. It begins by looking in the mirror and telling that person just how little he/she really knows. It begins by recognizing the folly of human wisdom, and need for divine instruction. All of our history must be placed in the trashcan, along with traditions that color our ideas of God and scripture – if we are ever to learn truth. We must become willing to accept the concept of being taught by God, of being led, rather than doing the leading. We must be humble enough to accept instruction in the methods He chooses to offer it to us. We sometimes think of ourselves as “above” learning from those who are not as “smart” as us, or not as “experienced” as us, or not as “spiritually mature” as us. In short, we put ourselves on a pedestal and make us unreachable by the plain truth He would have us learn. We can learn GREAT lessons from those whose IQ is far below average, by the disadvantaged, by the poor, by the homeless, by those we think to be “crazy”. We can learn great truth from those who DO NOT SHARE our denominational beliefs. But not while we hold on the arrogance of believing we already know it all.

So often we approach studying the Bible with the idea of gathering texts that support our preconceived ideas. Rather we should pray to be led, and remain humble as we read, open to His influence, and the teachings of others. Not everyone you encounter can offer you priceless gems of wisdom, but not everyone you encounter is always wrong or in need of being taught either. It is the “truth” we should be evaluating on its own merits, not the mechanism of delivery. The Bible was written by sinful men, and the gospel is spread by weak willed sinners such as you and I. It is not the men who were to be judged against perfection, it was the message. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, an Alcoholic can build a boat to save the world, a hot-tempered murderer can part the Red Sea, a philandering womanizer can become a man after God’s own heart, and a simple fisherman can write a book of Revelation that is still a matter of relevance and study in our day in age. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit a young girl can call entire congregations to repentance, you or I could reach that unbeliever put in our pathway, and a sinning pastor caught in a moment of weakness can find redemption and still preach piercing truth. None of us are beyond His influence, or above being taught by someone else whose sins we may be aware of. It is not the messenger it is the message that counts.

It is arrogance to believe that your doctrines are complete, and perfect, and in no need of a deeper understanding, or perhaps complete revision if led by God. It is unbridled pride to cling to church doctrines that have been passed down as absolute merely due to their age. Truth is a process. Truth evolves. If we are to truly let Christ lead, we must be willing to adjust our thinking on every topic, not just the ones we’re not sure about. To truly let Christ lead us into His truth, means to abandon the idea that our truth is His truth. He must show us this, we cannot assume it. If Christ is truly to be our leader, we must be humble enough to realize we NEED to be led, as we do NOT know it all. Our comparative knowledge is very very little. If we can admit this to ourselves, we are ready to begin the study of doctrine.

Race, Culture, & Religion (part 3 of 3) ...

We have talked about getting past the differences that keep us apart from our history.  But we have failed to address the differences we inherit in gender, and in age.  To become one, we must begin to examine what influence our cultures and traditions have had on the roles of men and women, as well as, young and old within our churches.  This is the last great divide we face as people before true unity can be achieved.

Women’s work.  It is an old expression generally applied to traditional home-maker tasks like cooking, cleaning and raising children.  We are quick to condemn it but fail to look at how it originated.  A mere hundred plus years ago our entire economy was still largely based on agriculture.  Family farms far outnumbered city slickers though the trend was beginning to change even then.  Under an agriculturally dominated economy, a farm requires many people to tend it.  Entire families were effectively partners in maintaining the family enterprise. 

Children helped out during the summers (which is why schools let out for this 3 months period of time), and wives maintained the entire household (a full and equal partner with an equal share of the work) while husbands and sons tended the flocks and fields.  This was no small effort on anyone’s part.  Women of that day may be looked at now through feminist eyes and thought less of, but in point of fact, they were equal partners then, and they are equal partners now.  Wives and daughters benefited from the family incomes of the successful farms, and shared the hardships when success was elusive.  The same is true today.

What has changed in an industrial followed by a services based / knowledge based economy is our immense ability travel and variety in task types.  Services now exist as entire industries such as accounting, consulting, and marketing that could not have survived a mere hundred plus years ago (at least on this scale).  This variety and this mobility changes the options both men and women have in supporting a family.  It creates a new ‘partnership’ required for success.  The old expression ‘women’s work’ now applies to every known form of generating income, nearly even the presidency of the United States (go Hillary).

Women are every bit as capable as men, every bit as smart, cunning, honorable or treacherous.  They have a few unique inherent strengths, and weaknesses as do men.  But most every job a man can do today, a woman can also do.  So why do we cling to segregation of roles within the body of the church?  It begins with historical biases founded on sexual differences.  We picture the typical women as ‘mom’ meaning, more nurturing, more protective, more consoling, than a man.  We picture the typical man as ‘dad’ meaning, a natural leader, the final authority in a argument, aggressive, risk takers, etc..  Our images of humans based on sexual gender plainly ignore the strengths of the individual. 

There are some men who are anything but aggressive, alpha male, leaders, who regularly take risks, hunt and conquer.  That does not make them any less than other men (though popular convention may disagree).  It merely makes them different.  I know a few men who are very sensitive, artistic, consoling, and nurturing and no, they are not all gay.  I know a few women who are natural leaders, fighters, thinkers, and conquerors (go Hillary) and that does not make them gay, or less than other more feminine supportive types either.  Just different.  Each person containing a unique set of strengths and weaknesses, some influenced by gender and hormones, some completely independent of tradition thinking or stereotypes. 

Because of our traditional thinking we have assigned tasks to men and to women based on gender rather than based on their spiritual gifts and abilities.  Any person who can speak well in public, inspire enthusiasm of an audience, demand attention to each word from careful articulation and excellent delivery – may well be qualified to preach.  Note I did not say any man, I said any person.  I also did not say, any straight heterosexual person, I said any person.  Sexual orientation outside of the ‘norm’ may be considered a lifelong struggle, but should be looked at no differently than the person or preacher who struggles with pride, or other forms of sexual misconduct. 

We all struggle.  No sin is different.  Men and women struggle with similar things – evil.  So who are we to limit who can preach based on our own perceptions of gender appropriate, or sexual preference?  Do we not deny God in this way, effectively rejecting HIS gifts of the Spirit to be able to preach?  There is no perfect preacher in this world.  Every one of them struggle with sins.  It is not up to us to judge their sins, but the content of the words they proclaim.  Do they preach forgiveness, hope, unconditional love, and the repentance of sins?  Or do they espouse lies for truth, evil for good, judgment from the pulpit and comparison with others?  By their fruits you shall know them, meaning, by their lives and acts of love and kindness it is easy to see who knows God and who does not.  Yourself included.

Duties within the body of Christ (the church) should be assigned based on the skills and abilities and willingness of the worshipper to serve.  The Gifts of the Spirit are to be cherished.  They are to be valued.  They are given for the edification of the church.  They are Christ’s parting gifts to us as He ascended to His Father.  We should relish what the Holy Spirit does in the life of anyone who is willing to serve.  We should not judge others based on our own foolish historical bias, but we should instead embrace others and cherish the gifts they choose to share with us.  No one who wishes to serve should be turned away.  Not ever.  I do not care how long they have been a Christian, whether it be 5 minutes, or 5 decades, those who wish to serve should serve.  To deny the Holy Spirit His work is to embrace sin that may not be forgiven.  It is dangerous ground to offend the vehicle of our Salvation by rejecting the work He does within us and those around us.

But to fully embrace this concept we must also overcome our historical prejudices about age and wisdom.  It is true that older people have the benefit of experience, and the wisdom (or sorrow) that comes from seeing many things.  It is also true that youth have more energy, tend to seek truth and ignore lies, and want to understand everything at a deeper level than they do today.  Youth question everything.  To assign roles within the body based on age, is to AGAIN ignore the work of the Holy Spirit.  It may be that a prophet is raised up within the body who is a mere teenager (anyone ever heard of Ellen G. White in the 1800’s, or perhaps Samuel of the old testament Israel).  They were mere children when first receiving the call, but the call was real, and work that followed is a testament to itself.  Youth is no barrier to service.  Nor is old age.

For us to assume leadership does not belong in the hands of the youth because they are young is to deny the very words of Christ himself who said … “let the children come unto me” and “you must become like little children in order to be saved”.  Note the absolute dependence little children have to exist and their complete comfort with this concept.  For protection they run to dad, for love to mom, for fun to each other.  So should we run to God for protection, for love, and for fun.  Christ did not say wait until they grow up before they come close to me.  He welcomed them immediately.  He did not say to them you need to grow up and become more adult like.  He said to adults to surrender their will and become more child like.  To exclude children from service paying no mind to their spiritual gifts is yet another apostasy.

We are limited by our bodies.  We are limited by our illness’s be they physical or spiritual.  We are limited by our pride.  Don’t we have enough limitations we self impose without adding to them gender bias, age bias, racial bias, and judgment of others?  Despite our infirmities, the Holy Spirit is gracious enough to place gifts within us.  Talents, skills, aptitudes, and abilities that are purely gifts from God – like all things we can choose to misuse them, use them for selfish gain and ignore service to others – or we could employ them for the benefit of man.  Choose to serve.  And reject no man, woman, child, or elderly statesperson who wishes to serve.  There is room for all.  And there is NEED of ALL.  The body is incomplete if you choose not to serve your portion.  The work is not left to others, but to everyone.  The work is not reserved for adults.  It is for everyone.  It is for you.  It is for me. 

Let us find a way to change our thinking.  Let us find a way to embrace those differences between us and value them rather than judge them.  Let us find a way to serve and accept the service of ALL who embrace it.  This is the pure will of the Father.  This is how true UNITY can be achieved, and perhaps in no other way…

Race, Culture, & Religion (part 2 of 3) ...

Embracing diversity seems like an easy enough answer to develop unity within the Christian community, so why hasn’t it happened already?  Why does it continue to be so elusive?  Are we really so enslaved to our cultural preferences that we are incapable of learning new behavior, or appreciating something outside of our norms?  Why does voluntary segregation persist when mandatory segregation has been outlawed so long ago?

Separate but equal?  How do I equate the value of one worship style to another.  What is it about worship that reaches the core of who you are and blesses you.  This is where differences really begin to matter.  To say that all “black” churches are alike is every bit as foolish as assuming all “white” churches worship the same way.  There are degrees of variation along common themes.  But these little variations are enough to segregate membership by choice. 

For instance, there are many churches who enjoy the practice of “worship” music.  This sub-genre of Christian music tends to have repetitive verses, simple themes, and is usually sung with many instruments including guitars, drums, sometimes a saxophone or two.  It is generally lively, heartfelt, and has become so common, many professional Christian recording artists release a “worship” album even if this is not their natural style.  You know it when you see it.  However, there still exist today, more culturally conservative churches that “frown” on contemporary music.  For them, only hymns or classical offerings are preferred.  Drums or electric guitars are not even permitted in the building, let alone tolerated in the forefront of a service.  A person visiting both of these styles of churches would walk away with radically different experiences (in style).

But what is important to the worshipper?  Is it the style?  What if one of these churches was filled with people who genuinely loved you.  I am not talking about Jesus-freaks that pledge their love to you on a whim, and follow it up with only more empty words.  Nor am I talking about people screaming out messages of “love” to those contemplating abortion outside of a clinic or two.  I am talking about genuine Christians who are really connected with Christ.  People who are able to overlook your imperfections and love you right where you are, right how you are.  People who will not participate in your sin, nor will they judge you for it.  They simply care about you, pray for you, talk to you, and be there for you consistently.  The kind of crowd you could ask to help you move apartments, and 50 people would show up without a second request.  Yup, those kind of people, REAL Christians.  What if this is what you encountered when walking through the doors of the sanctuary?  Would it change your perceptions about the value of style?

And in truth, are not we all seeking to find this group of people?  Don’t we long to hang out with them?  And isn’t it sad that we cannot find them.  Might be that because we don’t see them in the mirror, we don’t see them in the aisles and on the pews.  But Love is the base common denominator of all churches purporting to follow Christ.  And isn’t it interesting that no worship “style” has yet to produce a congregation of our mythical lofty aspirations.  There may be a church like this somewhere, but I doubt “worship” music or traditional “hymns” are the reason it flourishes.  No, it is the Love that is distinct.  The sermons become incidental, as the life of its members do the testifying.  The music is silent, when it is unconditional Love that reaches out to each human heart, bonds us, brings us before the throne in humility.  When REAL worship is present, style matters almost for nothing at all.

So why has style kept us so separate for so long, when in truth it is so unimportant?  Distraction.  Evil diverts our minds from truth and substance by focusing our attention on delivery, wording, and sour notes.  We fail to exhibit the unconditional Love we seek, because we are too distracted by the clapping of hands, stomping of feet, or tone of the preacher.  We sit sedate in our pews, being quiet, when we should be weeping aloud for the pain of the neighbor who sits immediately to our right.  But we hold our tears and our tongues, and fail to even take interest in our neighbor’s pain.  Or we get so wrapped up in the joy of the Spirit that we forget not only our own troubles, but those of our neighbor who for the moment seems to have forgotten his.  In either case, through unbridled expressions of joy, or quiet (and therefore “reverent”) complacent disinterest, we ignore completely the life of our neighbor to our immediate right. 

Congregations grow large and impersonal.  We are able to safely mask our pain, and hide in the vast numbers of those who sit near us in church.  And in so doing style helps us not at all.  Ambivalence has replaced Love as our common denominator.  Self interest has replaced self-less-ness in service.  And the delivery method holds all of our attention, rather than the content of what is being delivered.  We begin to cling to cherished traditions ignoring completely the true “temperature” of our church and ourselves.  It is we who are the problem.  It is we who hold our wisdom of choices, and preferences in the style of worship in such high regard that we have no NEED to seek out anything different – especially in ourselves.  It is we who choose this pattern.  It is we.

I am white.  But I yearn for; no, even stronger stated; I am in desperate NEED of, the emotional commitment of my black brothers and sisters in the faith who fear not to show the world what they feel about their Lord.  I must learn to open my mouth and let His praise flow out.  I must follow the example of my brothers of another culture and learn to be Loud for the Lord.  I have come to truly enjoy the music of every Christian culture, ethnicity, genre, and background.  I must take what I have found in music, and apply it to preaching, teaching, and service. 

I am white.  But I yearn for, and desire more than I can communicate, the sense of community that my Hispanic brothers and sisters in the faith have developed.  That sense of family that is SO gracious to accept me, and my lack of language skills, and treat me as if I were born of their blood line, not just as the adopted child I truly am.  I must unlearn my sense of independence and self-reliance and instead begin to look at my brothers and sisters as the family they have truly chosen to be, my family.  I must honor their choice and acceptance by returning it completely without pause, hesitation, or self-consideration.

I am white.  But I long to find myself the simple humble servant that many of my Asian brothers and sisters set so wonderful an example of in my journey.  I must learn to keep my need for recognition and gratitude completely subjected, and allow my service for others to be its own reward.  I must learn NOT to seek attention, but be content with honorable service and performance of even the simplest of the tasks set in front of me.  I aspire to become more than I am, and my Asian brothers and sisters have helped me along the way.  I see the differences in me through them, and I realize how far from the Kingdom I truly am.

When you stop looking and focusing so much on the style, and start searching for the meaning in the differences, it does not take long to learn to appreciate your brethren of other cultures.  When you are able to forego the notion of cultural superiority and adopt the truth of cultural humility you can begin to see truth all around you.  It is evil that keeps us so focused on differences as being the source of problems, rather than a method of finding truth.  It is evil that raises the idea that everything you need to know, can be found in one church, in one congregation, in one style of worship.  God is bigger than that.  God is better than that.  He can be found outside the walls you erect to separate you from others.  He can be found in the basic expression of unconditional Love for another.  He can be found in every “black” church in America, or the world.  He can be found in every “white” church, every “Hispanic” church, every “Asian” church.  It is not the buildings that contain our God.  It is the hearts of His believers.

If we, are the reason for the voluntary segregation of our religious culture and style of worship, then “we” must end the problem in ourselves first.  We must take our pride, our traditions, and our preferences themselves to God and in humility accept His changes in us.  We will be better off because of it.  But it begins with a recognition that this problem is not in the hearts of others so much as it lays in our own hearts.  We must ask God to begin by changing us, not others.  And only then can we begin to see over our differences, and become one church united under the banner of Christ.

Race, Culture, & Religion (part 1 of 3) ...

The last time that man stood completely united towards a particular goal it was against the will of God.  Probably not a big surprise given the condition of our world and our natures, however, God had to introduce a few divisions among us in language and ethnicity at the building of the tower of Babel, to teach us humility without having to destroy us yet again. 

Despite God’s promise we decided to take out an insurance policy against a future world-sized flood by building our own protective tower.  It was a remarkably dim idea, but managed to capture the attention of everyone in the day.  Once we changed, some of us darker, some lighter, and most with different dialects unable to clearly communicate with each other, we grouped together and began to migrate away from each other across the new face of the world.  A series of small communities that would evolve into the nation states of the world we know today.  This is the origin of racial differences within man.  And these differences continue today.

But Christ came to unite us.  Does that not imply that there should be no more differences between the brotherhood of man who carry the Christian banner?  Should we not be able to rise above the influence of culture and the bigotry of history, and form a united front in the name of Christ?  While on the topic it is also worth addressing the concept of chauvinism.  Are men and women equal in the site of God, and is not the history of subservience of women culturally induced and not scripturally mandated?  It’s worth a look.

Senator Obama has had his share of difficulties recently because he attended a “black” church in Chicago with a somewhat controversial preacher who was a close friend.  Think of the implications of this phenomenon.  In order to obtain the votes needed to win a ‘general’ election, the preacher selection of our democratic candidate must NOT be controversial.  The preacher must not make inflammatory statements, or hold unusual beliefs.  Christianity is not something the world loves to embrace, it teaches love to respond to hate, love to respond to enemies.  People decry Jeremiah Wright for making statements of consequence, or allegations of responsibility.  But no-one embraces the idea of praying for Osama Bin Laden, and sending only love in his direction.  It is interesting what we in the collective determine is ‘extreme’ speech.

But Jeremiah Wright is held in lower regard as well due to a long standing difference in worship style based on cultural differences.  “White” worship services and “Black” worship services have always been as different as the people who are involved in them.  Loud boisterous music and speech is not a usual part of traditional white worship.  Participation in most white church audiences is sedate at best.  Clapping has been introduced to show approval, but in general a quiet (and therefore presumed reverent) view of worship has been the fare for generations.  Rhythm has no place in the pulpit in “white” churches or does it? 

In general “black” churches have expressed the feelings and emotions of its people.  Preferring not to be bound by time constraints, preferring to be immaculately dressed, and keeping with intense emotional music and sermons; rhythm is no stranger to the pulpit or the choir in a typical “black” church.  These singular differences have been so pronounced throughout our history that we have elected to segregate at worship times each week to avoid conflict.  Although both types of churches promote love, and Christ as our singular savior; we maintain different views steeped in culture about what is acceptable forms of worship, and appearance before God.

The biggest crime of “white” missionary America, and of missionaries all through history, has been the indoctrination of culture and cultural habits OVER the pure Word of God.  We have not been content to share ONLY the gospel, we also feel incomplete without condemning every ‘foreign’ aspect of every culture on earth, attempting to make only a traditional conservative view of worship the accepted form before God.  Dress, music, order of service, and style of preaching have been boxed and shipped and demanded of new converts as the ONLY way to address the new found God.  Nudity, rhythm, dance, and emotion have been condemned as mere tools of the devil.  The term ‘savage’ was applied to those with less clothing than we, and deeper communal love than we have ever shown.  Savages it turns out, historically, have always been the well clothed invaders, not the less-so indigenous peoples.

Talk about your catch-22; for years those who craved truth and were hungry to learn of a Savior God who loves them and would even die to save them – had to accept “white” traditionalism along with the truth.  They were taught that deviation from the traditions was tantamount to rejection of the gospel.  But where in scripture does the great commission state “go in the world and teach them the gospel” somehow adding “and make sure you enforce strict worship standards along the lines of your supreme cultural understanding”.  I don’t think so.  Cultural differences are to be expected, and nowhere advised to be destroyed.  It is our arrogance at work again.  It is the insidious nature of pride to believe your worship style is “the” only worship style God prefers.

But can’t culture conflict with God you ask?  What happens when it does?  The problem with the premise of this statement is the viewpoint from which it is often asked.  We think ourselves fit judges of others actions and behaviors.  We are not.  And far worse, we know and care even less about motive.  Take for instance the idea of Nude Dancing as an example.  How many Christians are ready this morning to strip it all off, down to their birthday suit, and dance before the Lord, in FULL view of everyone?  Ready set go.  I don’t see you dancing …  Your look of relative horror at my suggestion ignores that King David of Israel of old, did exactly this.  In fact, he did it in front of the Ark of God (you remember, the box of solid gold, containing the original 10 commandments).  He did it all the way into the city of Jerusalem.  And He did it to humble himself in front of God.  David was the king.  He had excellent clothing that few could afford.  He had jewels and wealth, and prominence.  He debased himself in public to show that no-one should stand proud before God; that we are all, even a king, humbled by the creator of the universe.  And God accepted his worship and loved him all the more for it.

We have taught natives to get dressed, and wear their best clothing to come to church.  This lies in stark contrast to the word of God.  Nowhere does it say we should take pride in our clothing or appearance.  We should be putting off our jewelry, and our pride.  We should be clean before God, both physically and spiritually through the process of salvation, but not well adorned.  Even in heaven we wear only robes of light, not ornate clothing, designed by fashion consultants, and costing more than others can afford.  Taking pride in anything, is taking sin into our hearts, souls, and minds.  David’s act of humility was not an overall endorsement of naked dancing, it was a condemnation of our ‘standards’ of worship style, and a revelation of motive over deed.

The other portion of David’s act that is often overlooked in all the nudity is the dancing.  All throughout the Bible, believers have danced for joy before the Lord.  I doubt this dancing resembled the grinding, dry humping, that is designed to replicate and then induce sexual behavior.  But it was also unlikely ballet either.  Using your own judgment you can imagine that dancing was simply a physical expression of joy, a reaction to happiness accompanied by music.  However traditional “white” culture, you know the repressed one that comes from the pilgrims who founded this nation, put quite the damper on dancing (and in fact on joy in church).  It is a wonder that God’s honor survives at all in the face of the teachings that have been passed off in His name.  God does not strive for the absence of joy in His service, or the inability to express that joy physically.  These are traits of the evil one.  God longs for us to actually KNOW the joy of serving Him, and longs for us to enjoy that service, and express ourselves accordingly.

In order to ever reunite Christians under one banner, even within a singular denomination, we must begin by undoing the crimes of the past.  As each snowflake is different, each fingerprint unique, each flower somehow beautiful – we must learn to see our differences as a thing of beauty and enrichment, not as absolutes.  We must begin to embrace the different, and become enriched by it, not disgusted by it.  There is some value in the style of “white” religion, it is not all to be avoided.  But it is not all to be thought of as the complete capture of acceptance before God.  We will discuss unity further in our next entries …