Having An Issue With Someone or Their Sin

Recently I have seen a swarm of communication across Facebook in reference to a pastor of Baptist Church and his apparent inappropriate behavior. Who the pastor is and his sin (or alleged sin) is not important enough to the lesson to mention, but the message we can take from the situation is, in my opinion. I would like us to step back away from that current situation, and see how we can apply scripture to our own lives.

Since it was a pastor (elder, bishop, etc.), we will begin with:

1 Timothy 5:1-2

Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.

Now, does this mean that a pastor can never be corrected; even if they are living in sin?

1 Timothy 5:17-20

Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

We see that if a pastor rules [and by rule, we do not mean as a dictator – Mark 10:42-44] then they are worthy of “double honour”. We are to support them appropriately financially, and not try to tell them what they can and cannot say in their preaching. The Holy Spirit can and will direct their minds and sermons.

We are not to quickly judge and rebuke an elder – BUT if there is undeniable proof by way of multiple witnesses, then they are to be rebuked before all.

Notice it says “rebuke BEFORE all” and not “rebuked BY all”.

Who was this written to? Timothy – another bishop (elder, pastor)

Why should they be rebuked? What is the purpose? “that others also may fear”

Is that so others will fear certain people, the deacons, the accusers, or the church – meaning that those would have power over the pastors to have them fear them? No.

It is for the purpose of bringing to remembrance to everyone their sins may also be brought forth for the whole congregation (or the whole world in our modern day) to see.

1 Timothy 5:24

Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.

Just because your sin remains secret while another’s is broadcasted does not mean [1] theirs is worse than yours, [2] you are okay with God, [3] or that yours too will not be shown before men likewise.

The fear of seeing ones sin exposed should cause us all to confess and repent of our own sins to God, and ensure our fellowship with Him is right.

We must also notice these verses fall on the heels of Paul telling Timothy:

1 Timothy 4:12-16

Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

To those of us who would like to rebuke the elder, do we likewise give “attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine”? Why? So we can spiritually discern a matter BEFORE we talk about it. When we are told or read of something about someone, we need to think before we instantly cast judgment and start spreading it on Facebook and elsewhere.

Proverbs 18:13

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

And “heareth it” doesn’t just mean you have heard ABOUT it.

Do we also “continue” or walk in the doctrine we learn from scripture? If we don’t, then what gives us the right to speak of someone else not living right? We are to live right to be a testimony of Christ to others. Going around telling everyone else they are wrong does not make us right.

When we spread the news of another’s sin, are we doing it “in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity”?

Paul also tells Timothy:

1 Timothy 5:21

I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

We are not supposed to show partiality. So, if you want to spread the sin of a pastor across every avenue available to you, then you should likewise share the sins of your spouse, family, and friends – and even your own. Most of the time our problem is we want some person’s sins exposed, while wishing to hide those of others. That’s hypocrisy.

So, we’ve just glanced at the idea of rebuking an elder – which may not have actually committed any sin directly against us – but what about when we have issues with fellow believers?

What do we do about that?

Do we likewise display our issue with them across the avenues of social media, and through gossip in our church family?

Matthew 18:15

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Scripture says we should go to that person – not to Facebook or other church members. But, before we can go to that person, we need to go to God.

Why? To ensure we go to that person in the right spirit [in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity], praying the Holy Spirit may have them in the right spirit as well.

If we go in the flesh, we will just have a mess which will lead to more hurt, anger, and bitterness.

So, what if they don’t want to resolve the issue?

Matthew 18:16

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

We are to bring witnesses. This could be witnesses to the facts, but these will be witnesses to what all is being said between the two parties: gossip control.

What if they still do not wish to resolve the issue?

Matthew 18:17

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

If a person refuses to get right with God and fellow man, the church is supposed to treat them as a lost person.

Why? To hopefully draw them back into humble repentance, to restore their fellowship with God and man.

Just as with elders, although those who live in sin should be rebuked, that does not mean they are to be rebuked by everyone and through every outlet available to shout out their sin.

If you have an issue with someone or they have sinned against you, you are to first try to resolve the issue in private, then with spiritual witnesses, and then the church. If you haven’t gone to them, why are you going to everyone else?

If someone has not personally sinned against you, why are you spreading it around in circles and social media?

Romans 14:12

So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

We will be judged by the way we react to one’s sin, just as they will be judged by their sin.

And if you have spread one's sin, will you also spread their repentance and reconciliation to God and man with the same amount of enthusiasm? I pray so.



Can I Divorce

A friend of mind recently asked me two questions, and I figured I would share my responses here. Please do share your thoughts, whether you agree or disagree.

The second question was:

Can I divorce [in reference to fighting or abuse]

Now, concerning divorce, I likewise find the answer both simple and complex. It is simple in the idea that I believe Scripture gives two reasons when divorce [can] occur, but are never spoken of in terms of [reasons to] divorce. [1] reason is because of fornication, as written in Matthew 5:32. The [2] reason seems to be in the unbelieving departs, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 7:15. Although, does “the unbelieving” pertain to them professing they are lost, or they claim to be saved but their actions proclaim they are lost? Now, Scripture clearly teaches [Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. - Matthew 19:6] Scripture also compares marriage to the relationship of Christ and the Church [Ephesians 5] which teaches security of the believer, in that Christ will never forsake the Church. When a man leaves his wife or a woman her husband, they are breaking that picture. Once saved, Christ cannot separate Himself from His sheep, nor can the sheep totally separate themselves from Christ [even if they try, for He will go get them – Matthew 18:12-14] Such is why a saved person is considered to be committing spiritual adultery when they choose to disobey God.

When it comes to questions like “two people fighting all the time” and “physical and/or emotional abuse”, I don’t find anywhere in Scripture that says it is okay to divorce. I know this goes against man’s nature and our initial knee-jerk reaction, but it simply isn’t in the Bible [at least not straight forward] as justifiable means to leave your spouse. Remember Christ said [Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. - Matthew 19:8] Sin is what causes two persons to always fight [or sometimes it could possibly be just one as the “main” cause over time] or to abuse one another [which can sometimes be the woman over the man]. We must remember that two persons choose to get married, and sometimes their choices were not soaked in the knowledge and wisdom of God but in fleshly appeal and desire. Then divorce is merely adding sin to the initial sin of getting married without God in the first place [even if held in a church]. So, a lot of factors play into the actual finalization of seeking divorce, which is why it is a hard question to answer when it comes to what may be permissible and what is not; at least to us, because God clearly knows.

With that said, I think there is wisdom we can glean from Scripture regarding the abuse [at least the physical type]. Scripture is clear to talk about how we are to treat people as we want to be treated, and for those who abuse people [whether physically, or steal from, murder, etc.] we have law enforcement, etc. [1 Timothy 2] So, I believe a person is biblically justified in calling the police and filing charges against their spouse if they are truly being abused. I also believe they would be justified no longer living with that person until there was a guarantee [by whatever means necessary] that it would be safe. Though, the question still remains: where in Scripture does it say they can divorce? Possibly, the Scripture about the unbelieving departing could be used, but I see no other references.

Same holds true with spouse who seems to fight all the time. We would like to say “God doesn’t want us to be alone” or “God doesn’t want us to be unhappy”, but that is not biblical teaching. That is man’s emotions.

Paul said, [Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. - 1 Corinthians 7:27] Once we have chosen to marry [regardless as to why or what transpires due to our sin or that of our spouse] we are commanded to stay married. Even fornication is not a reason [to] divorce, as there are many marriages when have been dealt that blow yet survived through forgiveness and reconciliation to God and each other. Nor is the unbelieving departing a [necessary to divorce], for it also says [Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. - 1 Peter 3:1-2]

I once had a friend of mine ask if it was okay for them to get a divorce, and I told them they had two options to consider:

[1] They could forget God and the Bible, and do whatever you want to do.

Or,

[2] They could [a] examine their own hearts in light of Scripture and the Holy Spirit, [b] confess and repent of any sin in their own life [regardless of what the other person is or isn’t doing], [c] obey God by submitting to or loving the other person [because God says so in Scripture, not because the other person deserves it], [d] choose to forgive the other person [whether they deserve it or not], [e] and beg God to help change them and that other person to renew their marriage.

They [easy] thing to do in our minds is to just leave, because we think we will be leaving the entire problem behind; but that’s not the case. We will [1] have our own issues of sin [because we are not perfect] even in another relationship, [2] if we have kids we will always have contact with the other person, [3] the kids will suffer and not understand, and [4] surely there will be financial, emotional, possibly other family and friend issues for many years to come [if not for as long as we live].

The first question we need to ask ourselves is: Why do I want a divorce?

That will expose our hearts.

Am I Forgiven

A friend of mind recently asked me two questions, and I figured I would share my responses here. Please do share your thoughts, whether you agree or disagree.

The first question was:

“How do I know that God has truly forgiven me when I ask Him too?”

I agree that Christ does forgive, but I also believe that with sin comes chastisement (especially when not confessed) and consequences (with some sins more than others). I think in man’s mind we have little sins and big sins, but in God’s view every sin leads to the same judgment.

“How do I know that God has truly forgiven me when I ask Him too?” can be both a simple and complex question, in my opinion. It can be simple, because Scripture promises [If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9] However, this is only for the saved person – as one must first acknowledge they are a sinner, repent, and put faith in Christ for salvation. What if someone believes they are saved, but aren’t really saved? God isn’t [nor can] forgive a lost person for a sin, because they have not been covered by the blood of Christ – since [without shedding of blood is no remission. - Hebrews 9:22] Also, this is when one seeks true repentance, and not merely says “I’m sorry” because they have been caught. It is a heart issue, and the [The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? - Jeremiah 17:9] So, I think they only way to know if you are forgiven, is to daily [1] fellowship with God through prayer, [2] communicate with God through reading and meditating on the Bible, [3] walk with God in our lifestyle, and [4] repent of sin as soon as we are convicted by the Holy Spirit or confronted with it by ourselves or other persons. Because – most often – our “knowing we are forgiven” is to “feel like we have been forgiven”, and if we aren’t in touch with God daily we will surely [1] not confess and repent of sin and [2] will doubt His promise to forgive us when we do.

What’s Marriage to a Chicken?

I guess I am still somewhat naive when it comes to some things, as I had never really considered the possibility of a restaurant being forbidden to come to a city or state based on its view of marriage. I’ve witnessed some establishments being pressed against due to alcohol and those of indecent attire (or lack thereof) – but I figure those things have brought more heartache to the families, cities, and states in our country than marriage between a man and a woman. Perhaps I’ve been wrong.

I honestly don’t know much about Chick-fil-A – but that they are closed on Sundays and do hold to some personal religious convictions – although I do eat there occasionally. From what I have read, Mayor Rahm Emanuel apparently said “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values.” He further adds, “If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the First Ward.”

It appears the mayor clearly states that the values of Chick-fil-A are not only in opposition to the values of Chicago, but are also discriminating against a segment of persons. So, what exactly are the values of Chick-fil-A brought into question here?

“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’” Cathy said. “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.”

Looking at the above, the expressed values of Chick-fil-A are: Marriage is between a man and a woman. And that God would have mercy on those who try to redefine it.

So, the mayor has stated that Chicago neither limits the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, nor does he ask for mercy upon those who agree with his (and all of Chicago) values.

As for as, “discriminating” against anyone, I don’t believe I have read where Chick-fil-A has said they would not sell their food to those whose beliefs were in opposition to theirs.

I can’t help but see the hypocrisy in the idea where Boston Mayor Tom Menino claims (proudly, I’m sure), “We’re an open city. We’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.” How interesting, they are ONLY “open” and “inclusive” to those they wish to be; for they are neither being “open” or “inclusive” to Chick-fil-A. And, don’t give me the “well, Chick-fil-A isn’t being open and inclusive either”, because it is the mayor who is claiming they are the proud persons of an “open” and “inclusive” city. Does this mean that they currently agree with ALL the convictions of ALL other businesses (and those within them) currently in Boston? Why do I somehow doubt so?

Furthermore, we have “Alderman Moreno call[ing] Cathy’s comments “bigoted” and “homophobic,”” according to the article. Why do we still have the overuse of the words “bigot” and “homophobic”? The very ones who claim one is bigoted [prejudice, extremist] because they believe the biblical and formal definition of marriage are equally prejudice and extremist against those who do not agree to their trying to redefine marriage. This Chick-fil-A fiasco is case and point. And just because a person does not agree with homosexuality does not mean they are "scared of" or "hate" homosexuals. [i.e. homophobic]

City Councilman Jim Kenney joined in the “intolerance” speech, and promotes a resolution to “condemn this anti-American attitude of trying to deny civil liberties that every American enjoys.” How far have we come where standing firmly on the principle definition of marriage (that being between a man and a woman) is now “anti-American”? Every single American has the liberty to join in marriage. I don’t believe any Christian is standing against persons wishing to get married. The stance is against the REDEFINING of a scared institution (called marriage) by those who would wish to embrace what it was never intended to include (namely homosexuality).

Instead of using the name calling of bigot and homophobe through intolerance and the pressure to withdraw person’s freedom of speech, perhaps the homosexual should consider their ideals and create their own defining terms not already taken. Or, better yet, plead for the “mercy” Chick-fil-A has graciously asked God to grant them on their behalf, and refrain from the hate speech toward those who do not hold to their view.

Regardless of Chick-fil-A’s stance on marriage, I do not find any articles whereby they have denied chicken to a homosexual or even those who choose to work on Sundays.

What is marriage to a chicken?

It’s the only way to get those good sandwiches and nuggets at Chick-fil-A. ;o)

Church League Approves Softball and Denies Bisexaulity

Reading FoxNews.com today, I came across an article entitled: Pastor's sexuality splits Missouri church softball league. James Semmelroth Darnell is apparently the current pastor of St. John United Church of Christ in Saint Clair, and feels that persons having issue with his confession of being bisexual is something that “shouldn’t be happening in this day and age.” I ask the question: Why?

Although I can understand the Baptists churches reasoning, in this post I am concerned less about the apparent issue of whether or not other churches would participate in a softball league with his church and more so about his position of pastor – one who professes they have repented of sin, put faith in Christ, lives by the bible, and preaches the gospel – all the while taking no issue with having a scripturally condemned lifestyle or vocalized ideals.

The article declares, “Darnell, for his part, said his sexuality will not affect his ability to lead his congregation off the field.” Do they not read or study the bible? Perhaps the gender neutral versions pervert the nature of scripture against such perversion, but I have never read them so have no true knowledge of where they stand on such matters as sexual orientation. How can sexuality not affect a pastor’s ability to lead his congregation? Either the sexuality of a pastor (whether in private or public) is in line with scripture, or out of sync with scripture and literally God himself.

I know people who are also Church of Christ and would equally agree that scripture condemns any relationship outside of a man and a woman, and there are numerous examples of where persons are and will be punished (by God) for their rejection of such truth. The only true “alternate lifestyle” is if one so chooses not to marry at all.

I am not advocating the mistreatment of those who refuse to obey scripture (even while they claim to believe and preach it), but do believe we should stand firm on the authority and foundational truths of scripture and not the modern man’s perversion of it – and not merely in secret. I will not recount the many references one can find in scripture – as you may take time to read past posts concerning such a topic here – but would find it interesting how a pastor who actually uses the bible can proclaim our holy God is okay with the joining of a man-man or woman-woman in holy matrimony or relationship.

The issue is clearly less about softball, and more about what is truly a biblical lifestyle.

Being Granted the Right to Marry Gives One the Liberty to Divorce

For some time now, there has been much debate over giving homosexuals the right to marry, but what about the liberty to divorce?

Yes, I am a Christian.
Yes, we believe the Bible.
Yes, the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman.
Yes, the Bible says divorce is sin.
Yes, Christian people divorce.
** I am fully aware scripture gives some grounds (if you will) for divorce, though it does not state one must divorce or that one should look for reasons to divorce.

Now that we’ve gotten past that argument, let’s proceed with the ideals of those who do not believe what the Bible teaches but demand homosexuals be given equal rights within the already defined term: marriage.

I found this article today which talks about a lesbian couple who were married in 2008. They were apparently “among 14 same-sex couples who originally challenged California's gay marriage ban in 2008.” In 2010 one of them said, "Marriage is so important it's the most important relationship that you can have as an adult when you get older." Presently, they are seeking a divorce.

What happened?

How can two persons having a relationship for 18 years + fight so hard for 7 years for what they claimed to be equal rights + believe God must have wanted it for them = even consider the possibility of ending such a liberty after a mere 3 years on the basis “"We're human and we went through difficult times," Tyler said. The marriage ran its course, she said.”?

Why can’t persons (or rather, why do persons choose not to) fight for their marriage as much as they fight for the right to marry in the first place? If God wanted them to marry, does He now want them to divorce? How scripturally based is this? If one is going to use God’s name, then they need to acknowledge and obey His word. And this goes for the heterosexual marriage just as much as the homosexual unions. How many times is God/rights used to justify both the marriage and the divorce?

My point is this: What purpose did it serve for these persons to fight 7 years for a right they were only committed to for 3 years? Same holds true for those who live together for years, only to divorce shortly after marriage. Why are we so prone to leave, rather than to cleave?

When we see marriage as a right, then we view divorce as a liberty.

Marriage is a privilege: A sacred opportunity instituted by God between a man and a woman, giving the couple the honor of sharing their lives together in a committed relationship.

It’s interesting (and rather sad) how something worth fighting for to obtain as a right can be easily dismissed as worthless by liberty. May God help us!

Courageous Motivation

So, I went this weekend to see the movie Courageous with some people from our church. I thought the movie was pretty good, possibly even better than Fireproof. Of course you can’t really compare the two completely, as they focus on different aspects of the home. Fireproof speaks to the husband, as Courageous speaks to the father.

Courageous was filled with an emotional roller coaster, holding different principles that most likely every father in the theater could easily grasp hold of as something presently in their lives. Shifting from laughter to sorrow, self examination and the reality of what others may be going through, it helps expose the many different things we may actually not even take notice of though they are going on in our very own lives around us every day.

As I walked out of the theater I couldn’t help but feel motivated to be a better father. But, then I thought, if that is all there was, then surely it would be short lived. I mean, what am I going to do – wait till the movie hits DVD and watch it again? Then in a couple of months watch it again? And so on…

As much as I enjoyed the movie, I realize that if we really want to become better fathers, we need to do more than merely watch a movie about being better fathers. We’ve got to actually do what ‘Adam’ did in the movie. I’m not talking about signing the ‘Resolution’ from the movie – I’m talking about the actual seeking God and studying the Scriptures he was doing to arrive at the Resolution.

We can’t simply ride the coattails of someone else’s convictions. We have got to purpose in our own hearts and in our own lives to be better (1) Christians and then we can become better (2) husbands and (3) fathers. Sometimes – well, a lot of times – it seems we fall very short in our potential of being better. Not because the Holy Spirit is not moving us to do so, but because we simply have a ‘fleshly’ motivated time period (whether a movie, song, sermon, etc.) and merely fizzle out when it comes time to actually put our ‘motivation’ into action.

So, what am I saying? I’m saying that Courageous and movies like it can be great motivators that hit home in our hearts, maybe even at times we wouldn’t listen to the message they present any other way – BUT – if that motivation stops at the credits, then what good has it done us? If we fail to actually make a change in our lives – and not merely acknowledge or think about changing – we are no better off than before we saw it.

It all goes back to the Bible and fellowship with God through Christ. Like me, if you saw Courageous – or a movie, program, sermon, etc. – and felt the emotion, wisdom, and Spirit of God exposing parts of your lives that need repentance and growth, then pray, read, study, and mediate on Scripture to allow it to change your life (as a husband, a father, a Christian) forever – and not merely 120 minutes.

So, Whose Fault Is It?

In reading an article today, apparently about six scientists are being put on trial for suggested manslaughter for “failing to predict an earthquake that killed more than 300 people in central Italy in 2009 despite signs of increased seismic activity in the area,” I found something very peculiar. One of the lawyers (Alfredo Biondi) declared, “You cannot put science on trial.”

I find it interesting, because we often hear the claim from unbelievers (yet believers of science):

“If God is real, then why does He not stop bad things from happening?”

Could we not also ask, “If science is real, then why does it not stop bad things from happening?”

Would anyone doubt the existence of science simply because we do not completely understand it, sometimes incorrectly devise ideas about it, become confounded in its complexity, get lost in our formulation of the yet unseen, or its outcome is not what is expected and less than what we hoped for, while other times it is surprising and overwhelming interesting, even though we are limited in our ability to grasp its fullness?

My purpose is not to merely compare God to science or science to God, but rather the mindset of man. We find no error in putting God on trial by declaring He is either non-existent or at fault for not stopping or warning against disasters, yet we have science which has been created to warn us but declare “You cannot put science on trial” when it fails to do that which we believe it should.

But, perhaps they are right. Maybe it is neither God nor science which can be put on trial; for maybe both have indeed given the warning, and it is us (mankind) who have chosen to disregard it. Would not that then make us individually responsible for ourselves and each other? So, then, as a Christian (or a scientist in this case), it would not be God or science at fault but us who know the warning signs and refuse to warn others about it.

Dear Christians, we have the Word of God, we have the gospel of Jesus Christ. Are we sharing the warning of spending eternity in hell if one does not repent and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, or will we be accused as these scientists before God: "No one expected to be told the exact time of the quake. We just wanted to be warned that we were sitting on a bomb." (Vincenzo Vittorini)

Are We Bringing Others To Christ?

We find in Matthew 9, Mark 2, and Luke 5 a story of a man sick of the palsy, which had persons who were determined to bring him to Jesus for healing.

1 And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.

2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.

3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.

4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.

5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

I would just like to make a few points here I think we could all do to remember sometimes in our busy lives:

1. Christ was preaching the Word.

2. There was a sick man unable on his own to come unto Jesus.

3. There were persons who were interested enough in the wellbeing of the sick man to take time out of their day to help him come to Jesus.

4. There was faith in Jesus that he could heal the man.

5. Luke says “there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by”, but the religious crowd did not stop them from coming to Jesus.

6. The place was apparently so full of people no one else could enter, but the mass of people and crowded building did not stop them from coming to Jesus.

7. By removing the roof to lower the sick man to Jesus, those who bore him went above and beyond normal expectations to ensure he came to Jesus.

8. When Jesus saw their faith the man was healed.

Had there been no faith, no help from others willing to care for another, or fear of the religious and crowd, how would the sick man ever have met Jesus and been made whole?

The Word is being preached. What are we doing to ensure we ourselves come to Christ, and those around us are brought to Him for the cleansing of sin also?

Do Your Social Network Friends Really Matter?

According to an article on FoxNews.com, a lady died from apparent suicide sometime after posting her actions – Christmas Day – on her Facebook status.

The article declares: Simone Back, 42, had 1,048 Facebook “friends,” none of whom came to her rescue or alerted authorities of her suicidal post that read, "Took all my pills be dead soon bye bye everyone."

It also states: [she] received responses calling her a “liar,” “she OD’s all the time and she lies” and saying the fatal overdose was “her choice,” The Telegraph reports.

And adds: Some out-of-town friends did respond wanting to help, requesting her address and telephone number to no avail. Not one of Back’s friends checked in on her.

This is a very sad story. Any suicide or death of an individual should never be seen as a light thing, because that individual has crossed over into eternity. At this point, their relationship in Jesus Christ matters the most, even though they have surely likewise left weary hearts inside family and friends.

But, this brings up questions regarding Facebook, along with other social networks, and how we allow them to take part in our daily lives. How much is too much? Are we spending more of our lives gossiping over the internet with cyber friends, in place of actually spending time with persons face-to-face?

Take for instance, the “friends” list on Facebook. I personally have 300+ “friends” made up of family, friends I grew up with, church members, coworkers, persons I know and have known, along with others I have merely met online through numerous blogs, forums, etc. Within this list, I most likely only converse with a small number of them regularly in person or on Facebook, and do not even attempt to read the 300+ statuses, updates, etc. which happen daily – or even hourly. I just don’t have that much time, or the desire to do so. Sorry Facebook friends!

With that said, along with the numerous TMI and OMG (ha!) postings on just my Facebook Wall, I can somewhat understand how a status could go unnoticed (even a plea for help) by on-line “friends” (regardless how many) or even Facebook personnel. It is also practical to realize that many times we easily dismiss things, because the person is “known” to “cry wolf” or crave attention. This may not totally remove responsibility from us to seek help for those who may need it, but at the same time it does not place the blame on us and remove all the responsibility from the individual doing so either.

I mean, if we can dismiss the soul hurting we may see each day at work, in our homes, at church, or driving along our way, what makes us think we will pay more attention to our cyber relationships? How easy is it to click “Like” or write a quick comment “Praying for you” – but do we really mean it? Are social networks even used as a means to help one another emotionally and spiritually, to truly build better friendships and communication with those we care about? Or, do they merely make us focus more attention on ourselves, and the curiosity of knowing everybody else’s business – with a stand-off type of responsibility, leaving us with no commitment to intervene with hurting hearts and the needs of others?

Is it better to have 1,048 social network friends, or 1 who really cares? And, if we claim to be someone’s friend, what are we doing to make the relationship so? Are we simple appeasing our conscience, yet searing it at the same time?

Proverbs 17:17a, A friend loveth at all times…

Proverbs 18:24, A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award Contest

So, I haven't forgotten my Resolutions for 2011, but have simply added another short-term goal; at least for the month of January.

Here is an opportunity for anyone to submit an unpublished or self-published novel between 50,000 and 150,000 words (of their own writing) in the 2011 Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award, for a chance to win one of two $15,000 publishing contracts with Penguin USA and distribution of their novel on Amazon.com.

How to Enter: The submission period begins January 24, 2011 at 12:01 a.m. (U.S. Eastern Standard Time) and ends February 6, 2011 at 11:59 p.m. (U.S. Eastern Standard Time). The young adult fiction category and the general fiction category are each limited to 5,000 Entries, and we will stop accepting Entries for a category after we have received 5,000 Entries in that category.

Sadly, there isn't enough time for me to finish and submit my latest work, entitled Kristietiba, as I am currently only about midway through writing it. But, I have been slowly reediting and putting together the trilogy of Ekleipsis, Daegsteorra, and Andeis into one book entitle Land of Erde. Perhaps I will be able to complete and submit this work. I at least hope to.

Do you have a novel you have been working on? Give it a go! You've got a month to prepare and submit it. What have you lost?

Thou Shalt Come - Introduction

As I sit here this twenty-sixth day of December in the year of our Lord 2010, I am prepared to embark on a study less than few have intertwined into their lives. Some may find it an unnecessary learning – and perhaps they are correct in the large scope of life, if the mere reading should consume one – yet I cannot but hope that such will rather enlighten me in much greater things of importance along the journey. For what I find at the end may indeed be less significant – in practical purpose – than the gleanings and wisdom which shall become prevalent along the way. Of which, in no small means, would I be equally content with grasping at the understanding of. Though, likewise I am required to retain this expedition must not be satisfied without the acting upon such found knowledge; for what is faith without works[1]?

It is my belief[2] – from experience with myself, along with others I have conversed with throughout my life – when one is presented or seeks out information or questions concerning virtually all things, there appears to be already in place a sense of opinion, thought, or idea – whether partial or in full – concerning it. Even though scripture declares such is folly[3], mankind seems to find it quite easy to do – perhaps even subconsciously acting upon it. Whether due to previous learning we have received through school, media, society, or possibly from family, church, and books, we appear to find it difficult to simply say, “I don’t know” without actually having some preconceived notion of what it might or should be – according to us.

But, is it so wrong to have predetermined ideas of that which we may not know or fully understand? Or, rather – should we ask – how shall truth overcome our presuppositions, if by chance we do not lend our ears and mind to that which is in contradiction? To limit our study to merely one side or the other – of any topic; especially if we are but novice concerning its intellect – does not make that which we believe true, but bounds us to it as though we have become the final authority by rejecting all other knowledge without evenly considering it. Neither do harsh words, name calling, nor misrepresentation of the other make our case stronger and more profitable for those we deem without. We must maintain that truth is truth, without our vain presuppositions; for we do not establish nor define truth, as truth is whole by itself. Just as our assumptions may lead us to the truth, they may likewise disperse us from it.

So, for this study, I shall try to put away my argumentative mind, while attempting to give equal standing with each author and all books, as they present their case for what they believe to be truth. Using the Bible as the final authority, as did those in Thessalonica[4], I hope to take every point of doctrine and exert its truth in my own life daily.

I shall entitle this study Thou Shalt Come, based on John 6:37; whereby, scripture declares, All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

So begins my study of Arminianism, Calvinism, and those who claim the truth – along with themselves – lies somewhere in between...

---

[1] James 2:20, 26 (It would do one well to read the chapter in its entirety.)

[2] I realize, possibly a mere presupposition itself.

[3] Proverbs 18:13

[4] Acts 17:11