JUST WHAT IS FALSE DOCTRINE ?
What is “false doctrine?” At first glance, this question appears to be easily answered. False doctrine is the opposite of true doctrine. Now, that is a correct answer—but there is more that is demanded of such a question. For instance, if a man teaches something that is incorrect because of a mistaken concept of, let’s say, the gathering of the animals into the ark—by saying that ALL the animals were in pairs, by twos only (when it is clear that there are two divisions of the groups-by twos and by sevens.) But the point of this is—is the man that is unlearned, for the moment, teaches “by twos only” a false teacher? He is in error but is the “false teacher” label truly deserved? Is this preacher an anti-Christ?
I think that we shall see that there are degrees and nuances for those that are correct on salvific points and err in some way in other non-salvific doctrines. Even though there may exist a measure of error in some non-salvific teachings (of which we might all be surprised to learn that we ALL fall into such a group -- yes sir, I am certain there are points in which we all err) it does not make that teacher one that is inspired by demons. However, there are those teachers that are demon-inspired and teach “doctrines of devils.” These teachers ALWAYS broach salvific doctrine. These are the ones Paul addressed as “preaching another gospel, which is not another.” These teachers are false teachers—These doctrines, and many others like them, are doctrines of demons, and those that are used in such a way are truly false teachers—they are anti-Christ in nature. Also doctrines taught that lead men to destruction, such as worldly acceptance, are doctrines of destruction because they led men astray—“Without holiness no man shall see the Lord…”
When we look into 1 Cor. 3: 10-17
we see a clear distinction of the differences in teachers:1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 1Co 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 1Co 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 1Co 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
(1) There are the teachers who build with gold, silver and precious stones.
(2) There are the teachers who build with wood, hay, and stubble.
(3) Then there are the teachers who destroy the temple of God.
The first teacher, his lesson, is using true doctrine and stands the test. The second teacher’s lesson has used improper (incorrect) material, or at least some of his material was incorrect, that will not stand the test—this teacher has erred somewhat in his lesson. The last teacher is a continual destroyer and is destroyed himself—this teacher is a true false teacher in that he teaches doctrines of devils that destroy men (a false salvation).
The bottom line is; IF the doctrine taught is in error and that error causes the destruction of a soul then that doctrine is false—and is taught by a false teacher. IF the doctrine taught has certain inaccuracies unknowingly to the teacher but was not a destroyer of souls and that teacher teaches true salvific doctrines then that teacher is a “mistaken teacher” and not a true “false teacher” as those which receive the wrath of God.We, of course, do not condone even “mistaken teachers” yet we ALL have been mistaken teachers and will be again—we should, however, seek doctrinal purity with our whole heart. We as preachers need not only to preach and teach but also to receive preaching and teaching from others-there is safety in an honorable and instructive brotherhood.
__________________
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Calvary - Then, Now & Forever
Hebrews 13:8
I think that one must consider the several unique perspectives of Calvary in order to get a full orbed view of the Divine Work of God.From God's perspective Calvary has always been a "finished" work. "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Calvary in the Logos was predetermined, prearranged, premeditated and preemptive in the Mind of God. It was another one of those actions that only God can speak of as "things that are not (as to time) as though they were (already done in the plan of God as to His Will)." From man's perspective it was an unfolding drama of the Work of God. The past, present and future all had their play in the events. Man, as he is propelled along by time, was either touched by Calvary as to history or as to reality or as to a future event. The arms of the cross reach into all tenses. "In the fullness of time" is from man's perspective.
The Acts 2:38 message is the only way whereby Calvary becomes a living reality.Therefore the Cross is and always has been a "done deal" but was also a prophetic event of the future while it was also a "current event" and it was also a "historical" event. Calvary though historical is still contemporary because it IS; Calvary is an ever flowing power that keeps pace with every generation and never diminishes nor wanes. It is a living force brought about by the death of a Sinless Sacrifice. Calvary lives because death cannot relegate it to the pages of history only; Calvary defies time because it is eternal.Calvary, is-was-and shall be; it is an event before its time and of its time and without time. It is the stellar miracle of eternity. No wonder the preaching of the cross IS the power of God!
--+--
Why didn't God come immediately after the fall of Adam? That question has been asked many times. But scriptures such as contained in Gal 4 give a hint to the answer:Gal 4:4-5 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.Fulness of time: A time when all the prophecies would center on Him, and when there could be no doubt about their fulfillment. A time predicted so far before the event as to make it impossible to be mere human conjecture.Fulness of time: After the passage of thousands of years in order to prove to man that man could NEVER redeem himself. All such attempts miserably failed. Men were "without God and without hope" in their own devices. Only God could affect a salvation that would truly redeem!Fulness of time: The law could only testify to the failure of man and condemn him so Jesus Christ was "made under the law" to "redeem them that were under the law." He came into the system of condemnation--yet was not condemned Himself in oder to rescue those that were condemned. "Yet without sin." to die for those that were IN sin.
I think that one must consider the several unique perspectives of Calvary in order to get a full orbed view of the Divine Work of God.From God's perspective Calvary has always been a "finished" work. "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Calvary in the Logos was predetermined, prearranged, premeditated and preemptive in the Mind of God. It was another one of those actions that only God can speak of as "things that are not (as to time) as though they were (already done in the plan of God as to His Will)." From man's perspective it was an unfolding drama of the Work of God. The past, present and future all had their play in the events. Man, as he is propelled along by time, was either touched by Calvary as to history or as to reality or as to a future event. The arms of the cross reach into all tenses. "In the fullness of time" is from man's perspective.
The Acts 2:38 message is the only way whereby Calvary becomes a living reality.Therefore the Cross is and always has been a "done deal" but was also a prophetic event of the future while it was also a "current event" and it was also a "historical" event. Calvary though historical is still contemporary because it IS; Calvary is an ever flowing power that keeps pace with every generation and never diminishes nor wanes. It is a living force brought about by the death of a Sinless Sacrifice. Calvary lives because death cannot relegate it to the pages of history only; Calvary defies time because it is eternal.Calvary, is-was-and shall be; it is an event before its time and of its time and without time. It is the stellar miracle of eternity. No wonder the preaching of the cross IS the power of God!
--+--
Why didn't God come immediately after the fall of Adam? That question has been asked many times. But scriptures such as contained in Gal 4 give a hint to the answer:Gal 4:4-5 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.Fulness of time: A time when all the prophecies would center on Him, and when there could be no doubt about their fulfillment. A time predicted so far before the event as to make it impossible to be mere human conjecture.Fulness of time: After the passage of thousands of years in order to prove to man that man could NEVER redeem himself. All such attempts miserably failed. Men were "without God and without hope" in their own devices. Only God could affect a salvation that would truly redeem!Fulness of time: The law could only testify to the failure of man and condemn him so Jesus Christ was "made under the law" to "redeem them that were under the law." He came into the system of condemnation--yet was not condemned Himself in oder to rescue those that were condemned. "Yet without sin." to die for those that were IN sin.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
The Hatfield & McCoy Syndrome
In West Virginia-Kentucky backcountry along the Tug Fork River, lived two families (that turned into warring clans) in the late 1800’s. The first recorded instance of violence in the famous feuding, as legends go, occurred after a dispute about the ownership of a hog. It became, after much feuding over this and that, that the mere mention of “Hatfield” to a McCoy brought instant angst as likewise did the mere mention of “McCoy” did to a Hatfield.
No matter how “right” a statement might have been if the statement in any way spoke other than evil of the opposing clan it was rejected and belittled. The glasses that the McCoys wore were always Hatfield-colored and the spectacles of the Hatfields were always McCoy-colored. This warped perspective blinded the wearer to any good within the other clan—even the children.
I tremble to think that sometimes I may have slipped on a pair of some colored glasses that rather than aids my sight actually blinds me. I read the words in Revelation imploring the Ladocieans to buy eye-salve that they might see and realize how easy it is to think that we see when, in fact, we are blind.
Perspective is everything—someone has said. Indeed, the perspective we need is one far above the walls of flesh and prejudices of men; far above my friends and my enemies as well—the God-eye-view is what we need to pray fervently for! Are there certain “KEY WORDS” that trigger blindness in us? Do we allow an enemy to blind us of the good about him? Do we let our puny human emotions of pride prevent us from clear sight? Does “our clan” prevent us from seeing rightly “their clan?”
“How do you see?” Asked Jesus to the man that just received his sight. “I see men as trees walking.” He replied. And Jesus touched him again—and he saw all men clearly. I, for one, need God to touch my eyes—again—so that I can see all men clearly.
---+----
No matter how “right” a statement might have been if the statement in any way spoke other than evil of the opposing clan it was rejected and belittled. The glasses that the McCoys wore were always Hatfield-colored and the spectacles of the Hatfields were always McCoy-colored. This warped perspective blinded the wearer to any good within the other clan—even the children.
I tremble to think that sometimes I may have slipped on a pair of some colored glasses that rather than aids my sight actually blinds me. I read the words in Revelation imploring the Ladocieans to buy eye-salve that they might see and realize how easy it is to think that we see when, in fact, we are blind.
Perspective is everything—someone has said. Indeed, the perspective we need is one far above the walls of flesh and prejudices of men; far above my friends and my enemies as well—the God-eye-view is what we need to pray fervently for! Are there certain “KEY WORDS” that trigger blindness in us? Do we allow an enemy to blind us of the good about him? Do we let our puny human emotions of pride prevent us from clear sight? Does “our clan” prevent us from seeing rightly “their clan?”
“How do you see?” Asked Jesus to the man that just received his sight. “I see men as trees walking.” He replied. And Jesus touched him again—and he saw all men clearly. I, for one, need God to touch my eyes—again—so that I can see all men clearly.
---+----
Sunday, September 02, 2007
A Real Paradox
Proverbs 26:4-5 -- A real paradox.
The first clause: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him.”
The second clause: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit”
These two proverbial statements, which appear to be at odds, are found side-by-side. Do they contradict one another? No, they do not. Their placement denotes design, not disorder. These verses call for caution in responding to the “fool.” The term "fool" here denotes one who is spiritually senseless--an individual who is willfully spiritually blinded.
"Answer"—which means that the fool has made a statement that was intended to elicit some response. Note that not all circumstances are equal in nature. Therefore, there are times to answer an opponent, and there are times when he ought to be ignored. And the wise preacher must know when to do one or the other.
Recall the question --“By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” Rather than answering their questions directly—because they were not honest inquiries—the Lord asked: “Was John’s baptism from heaven or from men?” To which they replied: “We don’t know,” for they carefully calculated the problem of the question--if they denied the validity of John’s baptism, they would be in trouble with the people—who believed in John’s ministry. And if they admitted the truth of John’s baptism, they would be asked: “Why did you not believe him?” So Jesus told them He would NOT answer according to their folly.
Also notice that when Herod interrogated Jesus with “many words.” Jesus “answered him nothing."
God's preachers will time and again have to make decisions about with whom, and how much time, is to be expended in responding to those who oppose the truth. Separating the “dogs” and “hogs” from the others is no easy chore sometimes. A prayer for wisdom in making the appropriate response, or non-response, to those with whom the preacher must deal with daily is greatly needed.
The first clause: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him.”
The second clause: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit”
These two proverbial statements, which appear to be at odds, are found side-by-side. Do they contradict one another? No, they do not. Their placement denotes design, not disorder. These verses call for caution in responding to the “fool.” The term "fool" here denotes one who is spiritually senseless--an individual who is willfully spiritually blinded.
"Answer"—which means that the fool has made a statement that was intended to elicit some response. Note that not all circumstances are equal in nature. Therefore, there are times to answer an opponent, and there are times when he ought to be ignored. And the wise preacher must know when to do one or the other.
Recall the question --“By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” Rather than answering their questions directly—because they were not honest inquiries—the Lord asked: “Was John’s baptism from heaven or from men?” To which they replied: “We don’t know,” for they carefully calculated the problem of the question--if they denied the validity of John’s baptism, they would be in trouble with the people—who believed in John’s ministry. And if they admitted the truth of John’s baptism, they would be asked: “Why did you not believe him?” So Jesus told them He would NOT answer according to their folly.
Also notice that when Herod interrogated Jesus with “many words.” Jesus “answered him nothing."
God's preachers will time and again have to make decisions about with whom, and how much time, is to be expended in responding to those who oppose the truth. Separating the “dogs” and “hogs” from the others is no easy chore sometimes. A prayer for wisdom in making the appropriate response, or non-response, to those with whom the preacher must deal with daily is greatly needed.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILTY – WHAT IS IT REALLY?
MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILTY – WHAT IS IT REALLY?
Pastor James Groce
Calvary Apostolic Tabernacle - Molino, FL
08/2007
CONTROL OR COMPLIANCE?
What about ministerial accountability, just what does this phrase entail and what are the biblical precepts to which we may make applications?
First, one of the major lines that must be drawn in the sand, regarding ministerial accountability, is the difference between the “positional office” of the pastor in regards to authority and the “positional influence” of other ministers in regards to that pastor. (Note: For this initial discussion we are focusing on a seasoned pastor that has a proven ministry among his peers – we will look later at other ministries).
The word "ministry," in one sense, has the connotation of the collective body of men called of God - and from this standpoint an individual pastor certainly cannot be influenced by each and every one of this group, no, he (the pastor) finds himself in a smaller "slice" of the larger and complete pie of the ministry. And it is within this “slice” that his true influence, for the most part, must come from (just as a saint's true influence comes from within a local congregation rather than the entire body of Christ - but each member connected to the whole body via the Spirit). However, to carry the likeness of a saint under a pastor to a pastor under a "pastor(s)" is an incorrect, in my opinion, likeness because of certain “transformational” events that occur with the call of God. The pastor, it seems, is placed by God in a position of authority over a flock and also with certain authoritative "influences" within his particular "slice" of the ministerial body as well. Therefore, much like electrons, each minister within their particular spheres exerts certain influences on one another. One electron is not greater than another nor of more weight than another yet each electron undoubtedly exerts a certain amount of influence on his neighbor that is felt and accepted and acted upon by that neighbor voluntarily. The system of attraction and repulsion is an ongoing process within the body of the ministry which, again, much like electrons, maintains correct distance and movement within the system - as each is connected through the Spirit of God.
In the oddities of physics there is the possible event of an electron being able to escape from its surroundings. This “escape” of the electron results in the loss of the influence of the electrons of its prior relationship. When this event transpires it is because the escaping electron has been influenced from beyond its neighboring electrons and exits its neighbors – thus removing their influence from its existence.
This “escaping electron” scenario is much akin to the loss of influence that a collective body of ministry has on a preacher that has become “influenced” by an external force(s) outside of his once equalizing environment. We have witnessed such “escapes” in the TV issue when preachers who were once conservative in nature somehow became influenced beyond their neighboring brethren and “escaped” into a liberal influenced mindset. In other words, influence within a group can only be beneficial as long as that influence is regarded as vital and accepted by each influenced member. Once that the collective influence is no longer accepted by any one member there is NO power within the system to force compliance.
“WHO’S IN CHARGE HERE?”
I think the Bible bears out the fact that the pastor is the highest authority within the local assembly that he pastors. The chain of command is; God (the Shepherd), pastor (the overseer designated by the Shepherd) and then the church congregation (the flock of God). Any insertion between any one of these steps will corrupt the flow of divine authority. More than one local assembly has been either destroyed or critically maimed by the insertion of a deacon board between the pastor and the local assembly and the insertion of organizational elected officials or any other persons between God and the pastor has, in many cases, usurped the authority that was not theirs to wield.
The pastor is the highest authority within the local assembly that he pastors – but what is his position among other pastors? Consider, if you will, Sheriff Jones; Sheriff Jones is the recognized law in his hometown, however, when Sheriff Jones journeys to a National Sheriff’s Conference in some distant place then he, now among his peers, is only a sheriff among sheriffs. Also consider Sheriff Jones’ friend (he could even be his father)—Sheriff Smith; if Sheriff Smith visited Sheriff Jones’ town he, even though a sheriff also, would have no real authority in Sheriff Jones’ town. Sheriff Jones may acknowledge Sheriff Smith as his mentor and as a consequence act upon the advice and counsel of Sheriff Smith—not because he must—but because he deems the advice and counsel of his mentor, Sheriff Smith, as vital and essential in his life and occupation. Does Sheriff Smith have the power to force Sheriff Jones to compliance of his advice or counsel? No, he does not—neither does he have the authority to “step-into” Sheriff Jones’ town and become the law—at least not in any true legal sense. This “sheriff-scenario” is akin to the pastor and his position among other pastors. Pastor Smith has no authority within Pastor Jones’ assembly—except the authority of the ministry as a visiting preacher. Pastor Jones may consider Pastor Smith his mentor and voluntarily solicit advice and counsel from his mentor and act and obey them because he deems Pastor Smith’s words as vital and necessary to his life and his calling. Pastor Jones may even have a group of pastors that he confides in and considers their decisions and advice as essential requirements to his life—however, he does this not out of force but voluntarily out of need and respect.
What, one might ask, happens if Pastor Jones goes astray in morals or doctrine—who can correct him? That, my friend, can only be answered by Pastor Jones. If he submits to those that he has counted on in the past then they can direct him, however, if he abandons their correction—they have no power to force compliance. Legal papers and matters may ensue from the world of legal handlings and courts and lawyers if some choose to pursue such a course—but ultimately Pastor Jones either deems his counselors vital and acts on their words or he “escapes,” like the electron, to be free from their influence. He may not be free from legal proceedings of the world but he by his actions has severed himself from the spiritual influence of those that once were his counselors.
So, “Who’s in charge here?” A pastor must make himself accountable to other pastors if he truly desires the aid of God in his life and in his ministry. In other words, a pastor must take charge to give charge in his life. A pastor must instigate the accountability of himself to others—he cannot be forced into accountability. A pastor that does not seek accountability among other accountable men will soon breach the barrier of ministerial ethics.
ACCOUNTABILITY PING-PONG
The second chapter of Galatians is an interesting study in the dynamics of ministerial accountability. Notice: Paul consulting the “pillars.” Gal 2:9-10, “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.”
Then notice: Paul confronting a “pillar.” Gal 2:11-14, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
In the first instance, Paul and Barnabas have made a voluntary trek to meet with James, Cephas (Peter), and John who were recognized as “pillars” as those having been eye-witnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. This conclave appears to have been one initiated by Paul as a voluntary act to seek the counsel and blessing of these “pillars.”
In the second instance, which follows in the very next verse, Paul confronts Peter, the pillar, concerning Peter’s hypocrisy, his “dissimulation.” And it can be hypostasized that Paul also confronted Barnabas about his actions also in the affair. It can also be understood that Peter and Barnabas both accepted and acted upon Paul’s words.
So what we witness in these brief verses of Galatians chapter 2 is a “ping ponging” of ministerial accountability on a lateral basis. It is understood that these men were apostles and therein resides a uniqueness of position, however, it is also apparent that ministerial accountability was meant to function “across-the-board” within the ministry. Brethren should voluntarily seek accountability from their peers and they should also be willing to confront and admonish one another in the fear of God. Accountability, you see, must be a two way street.
“PASTOR POSITION OPEN – CALLING REQUIRED”
One could muse over the “Help Wanted” ads that seek individuals having certain skills and state that experience is a requirement for employment—how, if this has always been the requirement, did anyone ever gain employment in the first place? It stands to reason that somewhere and at sometime there must have been individuals that obtained OJT (on the job training) somehow—lest there be forever positions available to which none could obtain. (We begin here to deal with ministries other than just the seasoned pastor).
While it is easy to mix metaphors and to transpose worldly values and appraisals into spiritual characteristics we must be careful that we do not allow natural logic to outweigh spiritual logistics. While in the natural sense of things, men become skilled in their occupations through experience; their trade is the result of making a choice among many options. Men, for example, become mechanics by mechanic-ing. However we must realize that men become pastors not due to experience but rather by a calling and that calling is and must be of God. Does this mean that experience is of no consequence in the life of a pastor? Of course not, but it is not the experience that makes a pastor it is the call of God that makes a man a pastor (or evangelist, etc.). A person becomes a member of the body of Christ by the grace of God when obeying Acts 2:38—that new convert has little or no experience to qualify themselves as a saint-of-God—but they are one nevertheless. In like manner a man “becomes” a part of the five-fold ministry by the grace of God’s calling. “And who He calls He also equips”—as the saying goes.
Experience is a valuable commodity, in the life of a man of God, when its teachings are God ordained and are received by an humble heart and an obedient spirit. Experience stimulates the ministerial calling of a man of God—it becomes the sunlight that energizes the already planted seed—it is the rainfall that helps facilitate the growth of the roots of the fledging plant. Experience aids in the adorning of a preacher’s life and ministry that otherwise might exhibit a degree of plainness. Experience is both the coarse file and also the polishing cloth which with sure strokes either abrasively cuts away imperfections or shines the dull spots into a glimmer of glory in the ministry of a man called of God to preach the gospel. First comes the call—then comes the experience.
The spiritual ministerial flow, in this dispensation anyway, is that all pastors spring forth from pastors. In other words, God calls men while under the authority of a pastor (much like how God makes chicks from eggs under a hen—no egg leaves the nest under its own power—a transformation is required). This transforming time under a pastor for a man called of God is “deaconship.” A man called of God to the ministry is not first called as a part of the five-fold ministry but rather he serves as a deacon under the authority and guidance of a pastor. It is this deaconship interval where certain qualifications and requirements are to be met, according to 1Tim 3:10-13; “And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” It would seem only natural that since men are birthed under the authority and guidance of a pastor that that pastor would remain a vital influence in the life of “his son(s)” in the gospel.
We cannot help but notice that the qualifications of a deacon closely parallel that of a bishop with the exception of “how shall he rule the house of God.” This noted exception says so very much concerning the position of the deacon—mainly that he is not yet in a position of authority over a church because he himself is still under the authority of his pastor. Notice also that these men are to “first be proved.” “Proved” here according to Barnes; “the meaning is, that they should have had an opportunity of making their character known, and should have gained such respect for their piety, and their other qualifications, that there would be reason to believe that they would perform the functions of the office well.” “Proved” contains the ideal of the testing of metal (See 1 Th. 2:4).
These men, as is also pointed out in 1Tim 3, which are under the authority of their pastors must have “used the office of a deacon well.” The word “used” signifies a time element—a temporary position—a time where the deacon is receiving training under the guidance of his pastor. When God calls men into His ministry it will be from this deacon pool, it will be from these men which have “a good report” from those within (the church) and from those without (the secular world)—it will be from these men who have made themselves accountable.
“HE’S NOT A BOTHER, HE’S MY BROTHER”
Neh 4:14, “. . .remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren. . .”
If we, as God’s preachers, view accountability in only legal and control terms we will have missed the true essence of Biblical accountability—which is rooted and grounded in a love for the brotherhood. True ministerial accountability can only function correctly within a sphere of respect and love among the brotherhood one to another. Your brother’s spiritual welfare is vital to the collective body of ministry. One man’s blight among standing corn is an automatic concern to the owners of adjoining fields of corn—likewise the injury of one man’s ministry is an automatic concern to his brotherhood. 1Pe 2:17, “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.”
Brethren it is important that we sense that our labor in God’s vineyard has effects far beyond the border of our small acreage—reaching even unto our neighboring brethren.
Php 2:1-4, “If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.”
Accountability deals not only with “corrective-lenses” but also with “compassionate-senses.” Accountability, as God intends, means not just a “pointing-finger” but also a “reaching hand.” Accountability, in the most basic of Christian terms, is to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” While failure among the ministerial ranks may cause “tears”—victory in our brother’s life should bring “cheers.”
May God grant His ministry, in these last days, the humbleness of spirit to both account and be accountable one to another. May we each “love the brotherhood” and “fight for our brethren!”
In Jesus’ Name!
Pastor James Groce
Calvary Apostolic Tabernacle - Molino, FL
08/2007
CONTROL OR COMPLIANCE?
What about ministerial accountability, just what does this phrase entail and what are the biblical precepts to which we may make applications?
First, one of the major lines that must be drawn in the sand, regarding ministerial accountability, is the difference between the “positional office” of the pastor in regards to authority and the “positional influence” of other ministers in regards to that pastor. (Note: For this initial discussion we are focusing on a seasoned pastor that has a proven ministry among his peers – we will look later at other ministries).
The word "ministry," in one sense, has the connotation of the collective body of men called of God - and from this standpoint an individual pastor certainly cannot be influenced by each and every one of this group, no, he (the pastor) finds himself in a smaller "slice" of the larger and complete pie of the ministry. And it is within this “slice” that his true influence, for the most part, must come from (just as a saint's true influence comes from within a local congregation rather than the entire body of Christ - but each member connected to the whole body via the Spirit). However, to carry the likeness of a saint under a pastor to a pastor under a "pastor(s)" is an incorrect, in my opinion, likeness because of certain “transformational” events that occur with the call of God. The pastor, it seems, is placed by God in a position of authority over a flock and also with certain authoritative "influences" within his particular "slice" of the ministerial body as well. Therefore, much like electrons, each minister within their particular spheres exerts certain influences on one another. One electron is not greater than another nor of more weight than another yet each electron undoubtedly exerts a certain amount of influence on his neighbor that is felt and accepted and acted upon by that neighbor voluntarily. The system of attraction and repulsion is an ongoing process within the body of the ministry which, again, much like electrons, maintains correct distance and movement within the system - as each is connected through the Spirit of God.
In the oddities of physics there is the possible event of an electron being able to escape from its surroundings. This “escape” of the electron results in the loss of the influence of the electrons of its prior relationship. When this event transpires it is because the escaping electron has been influenced from beyond its neighboring electrons and exits its neighbors – thus removing their influence from its existence.
This “escaping electron” scenario is much akin to the loss of influence that a collective body of ministry has on a preacher that has become “influenced” by an external force(s) outside of his once equalizing environment. We have witnessed such “escapes” in the TV issue when preachers who were once conservative in nature somehow became influenced beyond their neighboring brethren and “escaped” into a liberal influenced mindset. In other words, influence within a group can only be beneficial as long as that influence is regarded as vital and accepted by each influenced member. Once that the collective influence is no longer accepted by any one member there is NO power within the system to force compliance.
“WHO’S IN CHARGE HERE?”
I think the Bible bears out the fact that the pastor is the highest authority within the local assembly that he pastors. The chain of command is; God (the Shepherd), pastor (the overseer designated by the Shepherd) and then the church congregation (the flock of God). Any insertion between any one of these steps will corrupt the flow of divine authority. More than one local assembly has been either destroyed or critically maimed by the insertion of a deacon board between the pastor and the local assembly and the insertion of organizational elected officials or any other persons between God and the pastor has, in many cases, usurped the authority that was not theirs to wield.
The pastor is the highest authority within the local assembly that he pastors – but what is his position among other pastors? Consider, if you will, Sheriff Jones; Sheriff Jones is the recognized law in his hometown, however, when Sheriff Jones journeys to a National Sheriff’s Conference in some distant place then he, now among his peers, is only a sheriff among sheriffs. Also consider Sheriff Jones’ friend (he could even be his father)—Sheriff Smith; if Sheriff Smith visited Sheriff Jones’ town he, even though a sheriff also, would have no real authority in Sheriff Jones’ town. Sheriff Jones may acknowledge Sheriff Smith as his mentor and as a consequence act upon the advice and counsel of Sheriff Smith—not because he must—but because he deems the advice and counsel of his mentor, Sheriff Smith, as vital and essential in his life and occupation. Does Sheriff Smith have the power to force Sheriff Jones to compliance of his advice or counsel? No, he does not—neither does he have the authority to “step-into” Sheriff Jones’ town and become the law—at least not in any true legal sense. This “sheriff-scenario” is akin to the pastor and his position among other pastors. Pastor Smith has no authority within Pastor Jones’ assembly—except the authority of the ministry as a visiting preacher. Pastor Jones may consider Pastor Smith his mentor and voluntarily solicit advice and counsel from his mentor and act and obey them because he deems Pastor Smith’s words as vital and necessary to his life and his calling. Pastor Jones may even have a group of pastors that he confides in and considers their decisions and advice as essential requirements to his life—however, he does this not out of force but voluntarily out of need and respect.
What, one might ask, happens if Pastor Jones goes astray in morals or doctrine—who can correct him? That, my friend, can only be answered by Pastor Jones. If he submits to those that he has counted on in the past then they can direct him, however, if he abandons their correction—they have no power to force compliance. Legal papers and matters may ensue from the world of legal handlings and courts and lawyers if some choose to pursue such a course—but ultimately Pastor Jones either deems his counselors vital and acts on their words or he “escapes,” like the electron, to be free from their influence. He may not be free from legal proceedings of the world but he by his actions has severed himself from the spiritual influence of those that once were his counselors.
So, “Who’s in charge here?” A pastor must make himself accountable to other pastors if he truly desires the aid of God in his life and in his ministry. In other words, a pastor must take charge to give charge in his life. A pastor must instigate the accountability of himself to others—he cannot be forced into accountability. A pastor that does not seek accountability among other accountable men will soon breach the barrier of ministerial ethics.
ACCOUNTABILITY PING-PONG
The second chapter of Galatians is an interesting study in the dynamics of ministerial accountability. Notice: Paul consulting the “pillars.” Gal 2:9-10, “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.”
Then notice: Paul confronting a “pillar.” Gal 2:11-14, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
In the first instance, Paul and Barnabas have made a voluntary trek to meet with James, Cephas (Peter), and John who were recognized as “pillars” as those having been eye-witnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. This conclave appears to have been one initiated by Paul as a voluntary act to seek the counsel and blessing of these “pillars.”
In the second instance, which follows in the very next verse, Paul confronts Peter, the pillar, concerning Peter’s hypocrisy, his “dissimulation.” And it can be hypostasized that Paul also confronted Barnabas about his actions also in the affair. It can also be understood that Peter and Barnabas both accepted and acted upon Paul’s words.
So what we witness in these brief verses of Galatians chapter 2 is a “ping ponging” of ministerial accountability on a lateral basis. It is understood that these men were apostles and therein resides a uniqueness of position, however, it is also apparent that ministerial accountability was meant to function “across-the-board” within the ministry. Brethren should voluntarily seek accountability from their peers and they should also be willing to confront and admonish one another in the fear of God. Accountability, you see, must be a two way street.
“PASTOR POSITION OPEN – CALLING REQUIRED”
One could muse over the “Help Wanted” ads that seek individuals having certain skills and state that experience is a requirement for employment—how, if this has always been the requirement, did anyone ever gain employment in the first place? It stands to reason that somewhere and at sometime there must have been individuals that obtained OJT (on the job training) somehow—lest there be forever positions available to which none could obtain. (We begin here to deal with ministries other than just the seasoned pastor).
While it is easy to mix metaphors and to transpose worldly values and appraisals into spiritual characteristics we must be careful that we do not allow natural logic to outweigh spiritual logistics. While in the natural sense of things, men become skilled in their occupations through experience; their trade is the result of making a choice among many options. Men, for example, become mechanics by mechanic-ing. However we must realize that men become pastors not due to experience but rather by a calling and that calling is and must be of God. Does this mean that experience is of no consequence in the life of a pastor? Of course not, but it is not the experience that makes a pastor it is the call of God that makes a man a pastor (or evangelist, etc.). A person becomes a member of the body of Christ by the grace of God when obeying Acts 2:38—that new convert has little or no experience to qualify themselves as a saint-of-God—but they are one nevertheless. In like manner a man “becomes” a part of the five-fold ministry by the grace of God’s calling. “And who He calls He also equips”—as the saying goes.
Experience is a valuable commodity, in the life of a man of God, when its teachings are God ordained and are received by an humble heart and an obedient spirit. Experience stimulates the ministerial calling of a man of God—it becomes the sunlight that energizes the already planted seed—it is the rainfall that helps facilitate the growth of the roots of the fledging plant. Experience aids in the adorning of a preacher’s life and ministry that otherwise might exhibit a degree of plainness. Experience is both the coarse file and also the polishing cloth which with sure strokes either abrasively cuts away imperfections or shines the dull spots into a glimmer of glory in the ministry of a man called of God to preach the gospel. First comes the call—then comes the experience.
The spiritual ministerial flow, in this dispensation anyway, is that all pastors spring forth from pastors. In other words, God calls men while under the authority of a pastor (much like how God makes chicks from eggs under a hen—no egg leaves the nest under its own power—a transformation is required). This transforming time under a pastor for a man called of God is “deaconship.” A man called of God to the ministry is not first called as a part of the five-fold ministry but rather he serves as a deacon under the authority and guidance of a pastor. It is this deaconship interval where certain qualifications and requirements are to be met, according to 1Tim 3:10-13; “And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” It would seem only natural that since men are birthed under the authority and guidance of a pastor that that pastor would remain a vital influence in the life of “his son(s)” in the gospel.
We cannot help but notice that the qualifications of a deacon closely parallel that of a bishop with the exception of “how shall he rule the house of God.” This noted exception says so very much concerning the position of the deacon—mainly that he is not yet in a position of authority over a church because he himself is still under the authority of his pastor. Notice also that these men are to “first be proved.” “Proved” here according to Barnes; “the meaning is, that they should have had an opportunity of making their character known, and should have gained such respect for their piety, and their other qualifications, that there would be reason to believe that they would perform the functions of the office well.” “Proved” contains the ideal of the testing of metal (See 1 Th. 2:4).
These men, as is also pointed out in 1Tim 3, which are under the authority of their pastors must have “used the office of a deacon well.” The word “used” signifies a time element—a temporary position—a time where the deacon is receiving training under the guidance of his pastor. When God calls men into His ministry it will be from this deacon pool, it will be from these men which have “a good report” from those within (the church) and from those without (the secular world)—it will be from these men who have made themselves accountable.
“HE’S NOT A BOTHER, HE’S MY BROTHER”
Neh 4:14, “. . .remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren. . .”
If we, as God’s preachers, view accountability in only legal and control terms we will have missed the true essence of Biblical accountability—which is rooted and grounded in a love for the brotherhood. True ministerial accountability can only function correctly within a sphere of respect and love among the brotherhood one to another. Your brother’s spiritual welfare is vital to the collective body of ministry. One man’s blight among standing corn is an automatic concern to the owners of adjoining fields of corn—likewise the injury of one man’s ministry is an automatic concern to his brotherhood. 1Pe 2:17, “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.”
Brethren it is important that we sense that our labor in God’s vineyard has effects far beyond the border of our small acreage—reaching even unto our neighboring brethren.
Php 2:1-4, “If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.”
Accountability deals not only with “corrective-lenses” but also with “compassionate-senses.” Accountability, as God intends, means not just a “pointing-finger” but also a “reaching hand.” Accountability, in the most basic of Christian terms, is to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” While failure among the ministerial ranks may cause “tears”—victory in our brother’s life should bring “cheers.”
May God grant His ministry, in these last days, the humbleness of spirit to both account and be accountable one to another. May we each “love the brotherhood” and “fight for our brethren!”
In Jesus’ Name!
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Apostles
APOSTLES TODAY?
Pastor James Groce
Calvary Apostolic Tabernacle
Molino, FL
07/15/07
Eph 4:11, And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
I am persuaded that all five divisions of the ministry are still in effect as stated in Eph 4:11. It is also my opinion that sometimes we tend to overlook the "specificity" of the ministries. We often think of some of the particular offices as being all inclusive and existing everywhere and all-at-once. But consider the pastor, for instance, he fills the office of "Pastor" as a function of the five-fold ministry, however, he is a "pastor" only to a select congregation—and only there does his office have the authority, and execution of said office, in other words, he is not the "pastor" of ALL congregations.
I think this principle of specificity applies in all the offices of the five-fold ministry. This is why Paul stated in 1Co 9:2; “If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord." An apostle may not be EVERYONE'S apostle - he may function, in the will of God, as an apostle to a select people, event, place or time. This, I feel, holds true for the prophet also as well as for the evangelist and the teacher. Probably, in my way of thinking, the one ministry with the widest orb of specificity as pertaining to his calling would be the evangelist -- and yet he is not EVERYONE'S evangelist just as the prophet is not everyone's prophet nor the teacher everyone's teacher. They seem to operate in specific places, times and events to a specific people as God directs.
Paul recognized his "specificity" as to the Gentiles - even though he certainly preached to the Jews also, as we well know - but his FOCUS was to the Gentiles – “by the will of God,” as he himself declares. The other Apostles (these men were unique in that the people, time, place and events were unique) were Christ's Apostles to the Church (to the Jew first) - We do not have apostles today in the same "specificity" of the original apostles because we no longer have the SAME people, time, place and events as they were apostles to -- BUT we still have apostles TODAY for specific people, places, times and events.
We must remember that Paul called Jesus -- THE APOSTLE -- HE is the single OVERALL Apostle to all people in all places, times and events. Heb 3:1; Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
Stated in house terms, I see:
The Apostle, as the man who, builds the house. (the man who laid the foundation - set the walls - etc.)
[That's why Jesus Christ is Our Apostle - "upon this rock I will build my church..."]
The Pastor, as the man who, lives in the house and is responsible for it - the caretaker.
The Evangelist, as the man who, at the request of the house caretaker, comes to paint, and clean and make additions to the house.
The Teacher, as the man who, at the request of the house caretaker, comes to illustrate how certain items work, operate, function in the house (i.e. the AC).
and
The Prophet, as the man who, comes to inform the caretaker of termites or dry rot in the house, etc.
The Apostle is more "government and structure" minded, while the pastor is more "caretaker" minded and the evangelist is more "remodeling" minded, while the teacher is more "to give understanding" minded and the prophet is more "discovery" minded.
But they all are "house" (church) minded.
Eph 4:12, For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
In Love--With Truth
2 Thess. 2:10b “…because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”
It is sobering to realize that this statement implies that we don’t naturally love the truth. Nor, for that matter, can we be saved without loving the truth. Jesus said in another place that no one can come unto God, except the Father draw him. We are helpless in our natural state. That fact is the truth.
We have a natural antipathy to the truth: it implies something about us that challenges our sense of independence. But the scriptures tell us emphatically that we are not independent.We simply don’t like hearing the truth about ourselves. Pontius Pilate even attempted to engage Jesus Christ in a philosophical discussion of the nature of truth when he asked “What is truth?” Such a question springs naturally out of our hearts.
Our love of the truth causes us to "ask for the old paths, where is the good way." It directs us to the "strait gate" and "narrow way" that leads to life eternal. Because we "love the truth," we jealously guard against allowing truth to slip through our fingers to be "trodden under foot of men." "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip" (Heb. 2:1). All this we do because we "love the truth!"
The accumulation of facts gives us science. Is this the truth? Or is there more? Facts mixed with educated guesses give us half-truths. Distortions that rely on fact to support corruption, are lies. And we are inundated both in the world and in the Church with partial truth. More often then not it is our own selfish desires that cause us to accept so much of what we want to be true. We choose what is comfortable, with a mind set what we agree with agrees with us. What we agree with or what we choose to believe to often departs from the truth. We want to be agreeable. We want to be accepted.
We want to appear reasonable. And therefore our pursuit of the truth is tempered by our leaning toward disconcertion. We become half-hearted and without desire, for perfect truth; fading into a dim blindness. The truth does not elude us. It becomes obscure by our want of it rather then our need. We seek after it by gesture and innuendo allowing our hearing to be dulled. Our failure becomes complete when we reach that selective hearing state and hear only what we want. In our self-satisfied yet empty state, truth becomes that aloof phantom of spirituality we chase after but can never attain, perceivable but not livable.
Truth…What I hear, does it make me feel good? Does it please me? Can I live with it?Can I have it in small doses?Will it cause me to change? Is there an immediacy to act on it? We may even laugh in the face of it! We ask more of the truth then it is, then we are willing to gain from its presence in our lives. Our selfishness out weighs reality and we can then become embroiled in rituals for the sake of security or we well up inside ourselves independent. Secure in ourselves. We lend ourselves without commitment or submission. There in is the middle ground; we are groundless. For without the truth to lead us everything is in a flux of what I want when I want it. How much I’m willing is the measure of how much truth we’ve allowed to effect us. How can we become so blind? How can we be so insensitive? How can we run from rather then run to the truth? How can we live without joy? The results of selfishness is, we unknowingly become prisoners of ourselves. Bound up in cords of half-truths we suppress the desire to love… the truth…, which can set us free. We measure the ebb and flow of what we accept as truth. What we allow to touch our lives. What we want to believe… and no more or we would have to act on it.
We come to believe we have control of our input and our output… self determined but alas self-deceived. Lost, we wonder in circles which become ruts. In self-assumed safety we dig deeper and deeper. This is at the heart of religiosity. If we all do it together and tell ourselves it will be ok… it will. Rote, rite and ritual do it again and again. Empty of love. We have left the truth for some semblance of order… and the hope of perfecting that order. We love to act in concert not for the love of others but to confirm; we must be right if others agree. We just love to go through the motions. We love the symbols of truth, icons or idols. We come to love every thing about it, but the truth itself.
Thank God the truth is greater than us all. Greater then our certainty, greater then our foolishness. The truth is not a rule nor a set of rules nor a book nor any standard we can set or imagine… the truth is all the love there is forever… the truth is Jesus…He and He alone is the truth the way and the life… who has set us free…Seekers of the truth that have ears to hear… come follow… the truth… Jesus…
Still we continue to answer, with questions… rather then simply obey and follow…We replace love with a carnal substitute; repetitions, knowledge, icons, anything we can call spiritual. And how wrong can we be amid the throng. The other alternative is denial we move away from the truth driving deeper into ourselves. Trusting our selves to no one. In a crowd we remain alone within our self. Who knows better than I. Self love keeps me attached to the God in me… who turns out to be me. Denying the truth for want of a greater love… myself. But the only answer is to “receive the love of the truth” which is Jesus Christ!“Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free!”
--------+----------
2 Thess. 2:10b “…because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”
It is sobering to realize that this statement implies that we don’t naturally love the truth. Nor, for that matter, can we be saved without loving the truth. Jesus said in another place that no one can come unto God, except the Father draw him. We are helpless in our natural state. That fact is the truth.
We have a natural antipathy to the truth: it implies something about us that challenges our sense of independence. But the scriptures tell us emphatically that we are not independent.We simply don’t like hearing the truth about ourselves. Pontius Pilate even attempted to engage Jesus Christ in a philosophical discussion of the nature of truth when he asked “What is truth?” Such a question springs naturally out of our hearts.
Our love of the truth causes us to "ask for the old paths, where is the good way." It directs us to the "strait gate" and "narrow way" that leads to life eternal. Because we "love the truth," we jealously guard against allowing truth to slip through our fingers to be "trodden under foot of men." "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip" (Heb. 2:1). All this we do because we "love the truth!"
The accumulation of facts gives us science. Is this the truth? Or is there more? Facts mixed with educated guesses give us half-truths. Distortions that rely on fact to support corruption, are lies. And we are inundated both in the world and in the Church with partial truth. More often then not it is our own selfish desires that cause us to accept so much of what we want to be true. We choose what is comfortable, with a mind set what we agree with agrees with us. What we agree with or what we choose to believe to often departs from the truth. We want to be agreeable. We want to be accepted.
We want to appear reasonable. And therefore our pursuit of the truth is tempered by our leaning toward disconcertion. We become half-hearted and without desire, for perfect truth; fading into a dim blindness. The truth does not elude us. It becomes obscure by our want of it rather then our need. We seek after it by gesture and innuendo allowing our hearing to be dulled. Our failure becomes complete when we reach that selective hearing state and hear only what we want. In our self-satisfied yet empty state, truth becomes that aloof phantom of spirituality we chase after but can never attain, perceivable but not livable.
Truth…What I hear, does it make me feel good? Does it please me? Can I live with it?Can I have it in small doses?Will it cause me to change? Is there an immediacy to act on it? We may even laugh in the face of it! We ask more of the truth then it is, then we are willing to gain from its presence in our lives. Our selfishness out weighs reality and we can then become embroiled in rituals for the sake of security or we well up inside ourselves independent. Secure in ourselves. We lend ourselves without commitment or submission. There in is the middle ground; we are groundless. For without the truth to lead us everything is in a flux of what I want when I want it. How much I’m willing is the measure of how much truth we’ve allowed to effect us. How can we become so blind? How can we be so insensitive? How can we run from rather then run to the truth? How can we live without joy? The results of selfishness is, we unknowingly become prisoners of ourselves. Bound up in cords of half-truths we suppress the desire to love… the truth…, which can set us free. We measure the ebb and flow of what we accept as truth. What we allow to touch our lives. What we want to believe… and no more or we would have to act on it.
We come to believe we have control of our input and our output… self determined but alas self-deceived. Lost, we wonder in circles which become ruts. In self-assumed safety we dig deeper and deeper. This is at the heart of religiosity. If we all do it together and tell ourselves it will be ok… it will. Rote, rite and ritual do it again and again. Empty of love. We have left the truth for some semblance of order… and the hope of perfecting that order. We love to act in concert not for the love of others but to confirm; we must be right if others agree. We just love to go through the motions. We love the symbols of truth, icons or idols. We come to love every thing about it, but the truth itself.
Thank God the truth is greater than us all. Greater then our certainty, greater then our foolishness. The truth is not a rule nor a set of rules nor a book nor any standard we can set or imagine… the truth is all the love there is forever… the truth is Jesus…He and He alone is the truth the way and the life… who has set us free…Seekers of the truth that have ears to hear… come follow… the truth… Jesus…
Still we continue to answer, with questions… rather then simply obey and follow…We replace love with a carnal substitute; repetitions, knowledge, icons, anything we can call spiritual. And how wrong can we be amid the throng. The other alternative is denial we move away from the truth driving deeper into ourselves. Trusting our selves to no one. In a crowd we remain alone within our self. Who knows better than I. Self love keeps me attached to the God in me… who turns out to be me. Denying the truth for want of a greater love… myself. But the only answer is to “receive the love of the truth” which is Jesus Christ!“Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free!”
--------+----------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
