What does it mean to do God’s will? Is it praying, prophesying, going to church, preaching or caring? It would seem that in our day and the circles that I have come from, that spiritual issues like prophesying, performing miracles, preaching, praying and soul winning gets the greatest attention, while the more practical issues like caring for the poor and oppressed takes a distant backseat.
Jesus seems to have a different set of priorities. Let’s look at two different groups of people and how Jesus thought of each one.
Group 1
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Matthew 7:21-23
Group 2
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Matthew 25:31-40
It would seem that Group 1 was very aware of how spiritual they had been. They could document their visions, prophesies and miracles. Documenting these things was very important because it could have a profound effect on the financial bottom line and/or the amount of prestige and power one could garner. And yet Jesus said he never knew some of them.
Ironically, Group 2 was practically unaware that what they had been doing was living out God’s will in the way He truly intended. But Jesus was very aware of them and welcomed them with open arms.
In both cases, listening to sermons or the size of the church one comes from does not even get honorable mention. Even more surprisingly is that soul winning isn't on the list either.
It is a dangerous deception when we are more interested in the “glory” spiritual activities of prophesying, preaching, receiving visions, evangelizing, going to church and even performing miracles, while at the same time ignoring helping the poor and the oppressed in very practical ways.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
What if Starbucks Marketed Like the Church
Does this sum up the latest craze for looking for the holy grail of relevancy at church?
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Why are We Afraid of our Homes?
No church historian would argue that the early church met in homes. Not only was it normative for them to do so, but it was practical and allowed for true community to exist in a face to face atmosphere.
There are 58 exhortations of “one-anothering” in the New Testament: love one another, care for one another, encourage one another, etc… A larger sampling can be found in an early blog, titled, A Layman's Job Description. These are face to face encounters that require some form of letting go of our natural bent towards selfishness and self-centredness.
The church was never viewed as a building but a gathering of God’s people.
Greet Priscilla and Aquila…Greet also the church that meets at their house.
Romans 16:3,5
Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.
Colossians 4:15
To Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier and to the church that meets in your home.
Philemon 2
Since the time of Constantine (320 AD) there has been a love affair with buildings that created a distinction of sacred/secular, clergy/laity and the corresponding costs that the early church knew nothing of. In the United States, building centered churches own about $230 billion worth of real estate with Christians giving about $10 billion each year to them.
I have even heard numerous ministers referring to their building as a witness within their community. For the first three hundred years the church thrived without such a witness. Besides, Jesus did not say that the world would know we are his disciples by the size or beauty of our building. But He did say that He would be known by our love for one another.
John 13
On the other side of the balance sheet there are no limits to size or outreach associated with meeting in homes. As the church grows, people simply meet in more homes. There are no fund raising pleas, more leadership is encouraged and released, personal participation is not only welcomed but needed. The numbers are small enough to allow for creative approaches to caring for and discipling one another. Helping the needy is doable since funds are not being diverted to salaries and buildings. The care can also go beyond daily needs but may even be personalized into teaching someone to fish.
Simple examples might be combining resources to give a scholarship to a child from a needy home either locally or internationally. Or the group might work together to sponsor an entire orphanage. A village in Africa could receive solar powered electricity for the cost of $35,000. Any one of these is not beyond the scope of what 4-8 families could accomplish in a single year.
A large group of people, meeting in a sacred building, do not have the ability to care for one another, equip all believers or strengthen authentic relationships better than a small, intimate group of people meeting in their own homes. In fact, brick and mortar buildings and meetings tend to undermine these values. Howard Snyder puts it beautifully,
"The New Testament teaches us that the church is a community in which all are gifted and all have ministry. The church as taught in Scripture is a new social reality that models and incarnates the respect and concern for people that we see in Jesus Himself. This is our high calling. And yet the church, in fact, often betrays this calling. Churches meeting in homes are a big part of the way out of this betrayal and this paradox. Face-to-face community breeds mutual respect, mutual responsibility, mutual submission, and mutual ministry. The sociology of meeting in homes fosters a sense of equality and mutual worth, though it doesn’t guarantee it as the Corinthian church shows.
The New Testament principles of the priesthood of believers, the gifts of the Spirit, and mutual ministry are found most naturally in this informal context,
Meeting in homes is revolutionary because they incarnate this radical teaching that all are gifted and all are ministers. They offer some hope for healing the body of Christ from some of its worst heresies: that some believers are more valuable others, that only some Christians are ministers, and that the gifts of the Spirit are no longer to function in our age. These heresies cannot be healed in theory or in theology only. They must be healed in practice and relationship in the social form of the church."
For ministers to say they love the teachings of New Testament without appreciating the context in which these teachings are applied is akin to saying one can enjoy the game of basketball while playing on an ice hockey rink. The difficulty for many Christians is that what they think is a Biblical standard of belonging to a local church with a building, a paid elder (pastor) and established services was unheard of during the days of the first apostles, well into the third century.
In a rather strange inversion of priorities many modern day Christians gravitate to a model which is financially costly compared to the early church model that financially cost very little. The irony is that which doesn't need to be done frequently and could be done individually is done frequently (meeting for a sermon) and that which does need to be done frequently, "one anothering" is rarely done or is at best seen as optional. It seems we would rather pay money for a setting that enables a high degree of anonymity while staring at the back of a stranger's or acquaintance's head rather than paying the higher price of actually knowing one another in face to face encounters. What would you have preferred, being one of the 5,000 that Jesus fed or being a participant in the Last Supper?
While it is true that there are no edicts to say one must meet in homes in order to mature and love one another, it is impossible to understand the early church outside of this context. Peter argued strongly that we are His building,
"you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."
1 Peter 2:5
There is definitely no command or even a single example of exclusive sacred buildings as a focal point for Christian activity. I gave no edict to my son when he got married that he should find a home for his new bride, he simply knew from example that to raise a family a home was required.
Meeting in homes does require input from travelling leaders like apostles, prophets and evangelists. Local elders also need to learn to work creatively together. There will likely be special times when the many small house groups will come together to be a witness that we are one Body, one church within the city. This was a pattern in the New Testament as well. This would happen infrequently since the core values of "one anothering" would already be happening regularly. Without these functions working cooperatively, it is definitely possible to become inward, exclusive and fragmented. Brick and mortar churches face this same dilemma. That's why we need these sources of wisdom equipping us.
Ephesians 4
So the bottom line is why are we afraid of homes as the main venue for nurturing and building up one another? Perhaps the better question is, what New Testament practice can be done better in a sacred building than in a home?
A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn’t flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.
Dresden James
There are 58 exhortations of “one-anothering” in the New Testament: love one another, care for one another, encourage one another, etc… A larger sampling can be found in an early blog, titled, A Layman's Job Description. These are face to face encounters that require some form of letting go of our natural bent towards selfishness and self-centredness.
The church was never viewed as a building but a gathering of God’s people.
Greet Priscilla and Aquila…Greet also the church that meets at their house.
Romans 16:3,5
Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.
Colossians 4:15
To Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier and to the church that meets in your home.
Philemon 2
Since the time of Constantine (320 AD) there has been a love affair with buildings that created a distinction of sacred/secular, clergy/laity and the corresponding costs that the early church knew nothing of. In the United States, building centered churches own about $230 billion worth of real estate with Christians giving about $10 billion each year to them.
I have even heard numerous ministers referring to their building as a witness within their community. For the first three hundred years the church thrived without such a witness. Besides, Jesus did not say that the world would know we are his disciples by the size or beauty of our building. But He did say that He would be known by our love for one another.
John 13
On the other side of the balance sheet there are no limits to size or outreach associated with meeting in homes. As the church grows, people simply meet in more homes. There are no fund raising pleas, more leadership is encouraged and released, personal participation is not only welcomed but needed. The numbers are small enough to allow for creative approaches to caring for and discipling one another. Helping the needy is doable since funds are not being diverted to salaries and buildings. The care can also go beyond daily needs but may even be personalized into teaching someone to fish.
Simple examples might be combining resources to give a scholarship to a child from a needy home either locally or internationally. Or the group might work together to sponsor an entire orphanage. A village in Africa could receive solar powered electricity for the cost of $35,000. Any one of these is not beyond the scope of what 4-8 families could accomplish in a single year.
A large group of people, meeting in a sacred building, do not have the ability to care for one another, equip all believers or strengthen authentic relationships better than a small, intimate group of people meeting in their own homes. In fact, brick and mortar buildings and meetings tend to undermine these values. Howard Snyder puts it beautifully,
"The New Testament teaches us that the church is a community in which all are gifted and all have ministry. The church as taught in Scripture is a new social reality that models and incarnates the respect and concern for people that we see in Jesus Himself. This is our high calling. And yet the church, in fact, often betrays this calling. Churches meeting in homes are a big part of the way out of this betrayal and this paradox. Face-to-face community breeds mutual respect, mutual responsibility, mutual submission, and mutual ministry. The sociology of meeting in homes fosters a sense of equality and mutual worth, though it doesn’t guarantee it as the Corinthian church shows.
The New Testament principles of the priesthood of believers, the gifts of the Spirit, and mutual ministry are found most naturally in this informal context,
Meeting in homes is revolutionary because they incarnate this radical teaching that all are gifted and all are ministers. They offer some hope for healing the body of Christ from some of its worst heresies: that some believers are more valuable others, that only some Christians are ministers, and that the gifts of the Spirit are no longer to function in our age. These heresies cannot be healed in theory or in theology only. They must be healed in practice and relationship in the social form of the church."
For ministers to say they love the teachings of New Testament without appreciating the context in which these teachings are applied is akin to saying one can enjoy the game of basketball while playing on an ice hockey rink. The difficulty for many Christians is that what they think is a Biblical standard of belonging to a local church with a building, a paid elder (pastor) and established services was unheard of during the days of the first apostles, well into the third century.
In a rather strange inversion of priorities many modern day Christians gravitate to a model which is financially costly compared to the early church model that financially cost very little. The irony is that which doesn't need to be done frequently and could be done individually is done frequently (meeting for a sermon) and that which does need to be done frequently, "one anothering" is rarely done or is at best seen as optional. It seems we would rather pay money for a setting that enables a high degree of anonymity while staring at the back of a stranger's or acquaintance's head rather than paying the higher price of actually knowing one another in face to face encounters. What would you have preferred, being one of the 5,000 that Jesus fed or being a participant in the Last Supper?
While it is true that there are no edicts to say one must meet in homes in order to mature and love one another, it is impossible to understand the early church outside of this context. Peter argued strongly that we are His building,
"you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."
1 Peter 2:5
There is definitely no command or even a single example of exclusive sacred buildings as a focal point for Christian activity. I gave no edict to my son when he got married that he should find a home for his new bride, he simply knew from example that to raise a family a home was required.
Meeting in homes does require input from travelling leaders like apostles, prophets and evangelists. Local elders also need to learn to work creatively together. There will likely be special times when the many small house groups will come together to be a witness that we are one Body, one church within the city. This was a pattern in the New Testament as well. This would happen infrequently since the core values of "one anothering" would already be happening regularly. Without these functions working cooperatively, it is definitely possible to become inward, exclusive and fragmented. Brick and mortar churches face this same dilemma. That's why we need these sources of wisdom equipping us.
Ephesians 4
So the bottom line is why are we afraid of homes as the main venue for nurturing and building up one another? Perhaps the better question is, what New Testament practice can be done better in a sacred building than in a home?
A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn’t flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.
Dresden James
Friday, February 20, 2009
Community and Individualism
For a strong community, individualism must be fully embraced.
There is a move going on amongst different people wanting a more authentic Christian experience. There is a growing sense of tiredness, apathy, boredom and lack of purpose being found to varying degrees in God’s people. The idea of the Sunday sermon being the central value of a weekly routine of Christian devotion is losing its prominence. Podcasts are much more flexible both for when you listen to them and for the content that is of interest to you at that time. Hopefully, the vacuum and freedom that is being created will be filled with something that includes taking more personal responsibility and perhaps, innovation.
One of the new experiments, which is really an old experiment, is communal living: a group of people having everything in common. Some who go down this route take the view that it is Biblically mandated. The desire is to follow the teachings of the Bible in an absolute way and although that sounds virtuous it potentially opens itself up to causing people to conform rather develop their own individuality.
For about the first ten years after the resurrection, the early church was simply seen as another sect of Judaism. From the perspective of lifestyle issues there were no defining differences. In fact, even the apostles who had been personally trained by Jesus, had not understood their mandate for the evangelization of the world and the need to set aside deeply ingrained personal values, in order to do so.
They were essentially following a communal model of love and care but even they were quickly forced to face a distinctly racial overtone connected to who they cared for. The first group conflict in the church illustrates this,
32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
Acts 4:32-35
1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.
Acts 6:1
From a place of common care, to overlooking those who didn’t fit their perceived view of inclusion, took only a couple of years.
Meanwhile if a Gentile had joined the church at that time, they would have had to make a full conversion to Judaism including the ever popular act of circumcision.
The reality was that the early believers didn’t even consider that their message was a broader audience than just Jews scattered throughout the world.
In this simple story we discover the weakness of communal life. It tends to be exclusive in nature. Those wanting to participate must first change to fit the group. It’s almost like they have to agree to some policies prior to joining, in order to gain admittance to the joy and "safety" of community.
There is no doubt that the early days of Christianity were marked with an exuberant desire to sacrificially care for one another. In fact, they were so communally minded, the idea of the great commission being for ALL people was virtually not understood and therefore not valued, which proves that ignorance is bliss. In the short term, that was likely a good thing in order to train up and equip new believers. In the long term, it leads to an elitist mentality that includes as its central value:
Right after the stoning of Stephen there was quite a severe persecution that happened causing the very satisfied and somewhat ignorant Messianic Christians, to be dispersed from Jerusalem into the Roman Empire. Communal life was quickly discarded with the more pressing issue of survival. Hopefully, the element of caring for one another without needing to belong to a group would be revealed for the sake of the gospel.
It was around 45 AD that the apostle Paul was now prepared to begin his first missionary trip to the Jews and the Gentiles. His message of Jesus being the only way of salvation was shocking to many Jewish Christians, as they had kept their attachment to the Mosaic Law and simply included Jesus in the keeping of the Law. Eventually Paul's perspective on the gospel caused not a few moments of discomfort for our blissfully ignorant Messianic Jews. I'm sure Paul could have had more impact on his Jewish brothers and sisters with a gospel that maintained the social order of the Jews. No doubt they thought, "Why not make the gentiles get circumcised? We did it, why should they get away without a little snip." Also, I'm sure Paul could have done without a few stonings and floggings that came simply because he refused to maintain the identity of the group that he came from. It seems that breaking away from old religious norms was as difficult then as it is today.
What is fascinating to me, in this brief exploration of early church history, is that the goal was not communal living. In fact communal living needs very little emphasis, as it is almost the most normative of human behaviour for people to band together: either religiously, ethnically, economically, politically or through family. In Canada, our preference is political socialism in order for us to not have to be too directly involved. And although much good can come from joining together for a short time, for a common purpose, invariably there is an elitist mentality that develops over a period of time from within the group. You simply have to go back to the tower of Babel to see what God thought of their fear of being scattered and their desire to band together. Genesis 11.
The goal of the gospel is presenting the gift of Jesus to whosover will receive it, with no strings attached. And yet, the normative approach in Christianity today is for people to conform to some group. Individualism is downplayed and usually not welcomed for the sake of the group. Rarely, do the strong support the weak in the current model but rather they tend to teach the new (weak) person to serve within the group.
This is done with the purpose of discipleship and in an effort to strengthen them but is in reality simply taking advantage of their naivety, with the results eventually being people afraid to step out of line of the collective group think for fear of being rejected by the group. I know of some groups that if you raised your hands in a meeting you would be asked to leave. I know of other groups that if you didn't raise your hands in a meeting they would think you are unspiritual. The group fears new thoughts and only allows those who have proven "loyal" to the group's philosophy to have a significant voice.
The idea of each member being truly valuable is often spoken but rarely is it allowed to flourish. Sometimes, this isn't even due to group identity issues as much as simple group dynamics: the diminishing effect of personal involvement and two way communication decreases exponentially for every person that joins in a particular meeting. I have greater involvement when I'm teaching a class of second language learners when the class size is less than 10. When the class is more than 20, the opportunity for individual involvement and care decreases dramatically.
Paul argues strongly for the dignity, value and input of every individual in a Christian gathering in 1 Corinthians 12.
21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
Paul’s words were not spoken in the context of the fragmented groups that exist today. He simply taught one body of Christ and as each person brings their unique perspective or gift to the body, everyone is strengthened and Jesus is able to be in the midst. In other words, Jesus works with our individuality and that is how He wants to strengthen the whole. The problem for modern day church group models is that they are simply too large to allow for every member participation and end up defaulting to a single leader model that literally doesn't need Jesus for the group to function.
Also, Paul didn't say if you belong to such and such a group, you should receive their care. He said, if you belong to body of Christ, the body should be there to strengthen you. It is so normative to accept the varying groups that we can longer hear the simplicity of loving one another without being in the confines of some uniquely defined group. The challenge for communal groups, which tend to be small, will be inclusiveness versus exclusiveness. Over time, the latter will prove to be more valued.
The idea of many members (individuals, but not too many at one time) ministering to one another as Jesus’ body, has been replaced with the idea of many members (varying large church groups) representing an aspect of his body. The varying groups rarely listen to each other, in fact, some think that even considering to do so as an attack on their identity. The idea that each group contributes some unique perspective that eventually brings unity within the One Body of Christ is incredibly naïve at best. The varying groups do no exist for the purpose of building each other up and revealing the whole of Christ. Their purpose is for the promoting and strengthening of themselves, period.
Most desire to grow numerically, but the goal isn't Christ likeness but in group likeness. It would be doubtful that if Jesus really showed up that he would fit in with a particular group's identity. Heaven forbid, He might want to have a glass of wine with the ones that forbid drinking. He didn't fit in 2,000 years ago and when it comes to people defending the need for their group today, not much has changed.
Here is a short history lesson on the early church to document some of the above historical observations.
I. Introduction
The church was composed entirely of Jews, or at least those who adhered to the Mosaic Law, for about the first ten years of its existence. During this period (c. 30-40 A.D.), and for the next few decades, the Gentiles viewed the church as just another sect or offshoot of Judaism. Indeed, at first the church was in danger of becoming just that. Every Christian was a Jew and did everything the average Jew did. He still practiced circumcision and observed all the other precepts of the Mosaic Law (Acts 21: 20; 26:11). Even the apostles continued to observe the customs and laws of the Jews (Acts 3:1; 10:9-16; Gal. 2:11-13). It does not seem to have occurred to them that the death of Christ meant that they were no longer obligated to observe the Mosaic Law. They gave up none of their Jewish heritage. They were simply Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah. They saw no incompatibility between professing obedience to Moses and obedience to Christ. Moreover, they expected any Gentile who wanted to become a member of the church to first become a Jewish proselyte. Of course, this was not at all what the Lord had planned for His church. Such views and practices not only missed the purpose of the Mosaic Law but also tended to make the church another exclusivistic, Judaistic sect rather than the universal body it was intended to be (Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15).
II. Conversion of the Gentiles
It was in God's plans to admit the Gentiles to the church, but not as Jewish proselytes. As usual, this significant event was preceded by preparatory measures. The first of these was the large-scale persecution of the church following the stoning of Stephen (Acts 8:1-4). Ironically, it was Stephen who seems to have had the greatest appreciation of the fact of the demise of the Mosaic institutions and the acceptability of Gentiles for church membership as Gentiles, judging from the accusations brought against him (Acts 6:13,14) and the defense he himself made (Acts 7). However, it may be that his death did more to bring about the fulfillment of his teachings than the teachings themselves did, for his death was the beginning of a widespread persecution against the church which scattered it beyond the confines of Jerusalem and Judea. At first, the gospel was preached only to Jews, but a step away from Jerusalem was a step away from Judaism. This Judaistic hold on the church was loosened somewhat in the conversions the Samaritans and the Ethiopian eunuch.(Acts 8). This took the church half the way to the Gentiles, but something else had to occur before they were admitted: the conversion of Saul (Acts 9). This was necessary because Saul (Paul) was to be God's special apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Rom. 11:13; Gal. 2:7,S). Saul's conversion is usually placed around 35 A.D. Then about 40 A.D. the apostle Peter was sent under the influence of special revelation and direct commandment from God to preach to the household of a Gentile named Cornelius (Acts 10). This was such a momentous event that the Lord saw fit to place His divine imprimatur upon it by giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles in a miraculous display prior to their baptism. This factor later figured heavily in the church's decision that the Gentiles did not have to become Jews to become Christians (Acts 11:1-18; 15:7-11).
There is a move going on amongst different people wanting a more authentic Christian experience. There is a growing sense of tiredness, apathy, boredom and lack of purpose being found to varying degrees in God’s people. The idea of the Sunday sermon being the central value of a weekly routine of Christian devotion is losing its prominence. Podcasts are much more flexible both for when you listen to them and for the content that is of interest to you at that time. Hopefully, the vacuum and freedom that is being created will be filled with something that includes taking more personal responsibility and perhaps, innovation.
One of the new experiments, which is really an old experiment, is communal living: a group of people having everything in common. Some who go down this route take the view that it is Biblically mandated. The desire is to follow the teachings of the Bible in an absolute way and although that sounds virtuous it potentially opens itself up to causing people to conform rather develop their own individuality.
For about the first ten years after the resurrection, the early church was simply seen as another sect of Judaism. From the perspective of lifestyle issues there were no defining differences. In fact, even the apostles who had been personally trained by Jesus, had not understood their mandate for the evangelization of the world and the need to set aside deeply ingrained personal values, in order to do so.
They were essentially following a communal model of love and care but even they were quickly forced to face a distinctly racial overtone connected to who they cared for. The first group conflict in the church illustrates this,
32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
Acts 4:32-35
1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.
Acts 6:1
From a place of common care, to overlooking those who didn’t fit their perceived view of inclusion, took only a couple of years.
Meanwhile if a Gentile had joined the church at that time, they would have had to make a full conversion to Judaism including the ever popular act of circumcision.
The reality was that the early believers didn’t even consider that their message was a broader audience than just Jews scattered throughout the world.
In this simple story we discover the weakness of communal life. It tends to be exclusive in nature. Those wanting to participate must first change to fit the group. It’s almost like they have to agree to some policies prior to joining, in order to gain admittance to the joy and "safety" of community.
There is no doubt that the early days of Christianity were marked with an exuberant desire to sacrificially care for one another. In fact, they were so communally minded, the idea of the great commission being for ALL people was virtually not understood and therefore not valued, which proves that ignorance is bliss. In the short term, that was likely a good thing in order to train up and equip new believers. In the long term, it leads to an elitist mentality that includes as its central value:
become like us, in order to be with us.
It is rather striking that of all the values that the Bible speaks about, the one that it doesn't speak about has been passed down faithfully from one generation to another and is very alive and well in the 21st century. Not only that, but groups that are diametrically opposed to each other have this one value in common.Right after the stoning of Stephen there was quite a severe persecution that happened causing the very satisfied and somewhat ignorant Messianic Christians, to be dispersed from Jerusalem into the Roman Empire. Communal life was quickly discarded with the more pressing issue of survival. Hopefully, the element of caring for one another without needing to belong to a group would be revealed for the sake of the gospel.
It was around 45 AD that the apostle Paul was now prepared to begin his first missionary trip to the Jews and the Gentiles. His message of Jesus being the only way of salvation was shocking to many Jewish Christians, as they had kept their attachment to the Mosaic Law and simply included Jesus in the keeping of the Law. Eventually Paul's perspective on the gospel caused not a few moments of discomfort for our blissfully ignorant Messianic Jews. I'm sure Paul could have had more impact on his Jewish brothers and sisters with a gospel that maintained the social order of the Jews. No doubt they thought, "Why not make the gentiles get circumcised? We did it, why should they get away without a little snip." Also, I'm sure Paul could have done without a few stonings and floggings that came simply because he refused to maintain the identity of the group that he came from. It seems that breaking away from old religious norms was as difficult then as it is today.
What is fascinating to me, in this brief exploration of early church history, is that the goal was not communal living. In fact communal living needs very little emphasis, as it is almost the most normative of human behaviour for people to band together: either religiously, ethnically, economically, politically or through family. In Canada, our preference is political socialism in order for us to not have to be too directly involved. And although much good can come from joining together for a short time, for a common purpose, invariably there is an elitist mentality that develops over a period of time from within the group. You simply have to go back to the tower of Babel to see what God thought of their fear of being scattered and their desire to band together. Genesis 11.
The goal of the gospel is presenting the gift of Jesus to whosover will receive it, with no strings attached. And yet, the normative approach in Christianity today is for people to conform to some group. Individualism is downplayed and usually not welcomed for the sake of the group. Rarely, do the strong support the weak in the current model but rather they tend to teach the new (weak) person to serve within the group.
This is done with the purpose of discipleship and in an effort to strengthen them but is in reality simply taking advantage of their naivety, with the results eventually being people afraid to step out of line of the collective group think for fear of being rejected by the group. I know of some groups that if you raised your hands in a meeting you would be asked to leave. I know of other groups that if you didn't raise your hands in a meeting they would think you are unspiritual. The group fears new thoughts and only allows those who have proven "loyal" to the group's philosophy to have a significant voice.
The idea of each member being truly valuable is often spoken but rarely is it allowed to flourish. Sometimes, this isn't even due to group identity issues as much as simple group dynamics: the diminishing effect of personal involvement and two way communication decreases exponentially for every person that joins in a particular meeting. I have greater involvement when I'm teaching a class of second language learners when the class size is less than 10. When the class is more than 20, the opportunity for individual involvement and care decreases dramatically.
Paul argues strongly for the dignity, value and input of every individual in a Christian gathering in 1 Corinthians 12.
21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
Paul’s words were not spoken in the context of the fragmented groups that exist today. He simply taught one body of Christ and as each person brings their unique perspective or gift to the body, everyone is strengthened and Jesus is able to be in the midst. In other words, Jesus works with our individuality and that is how He wants to strengthen the whole. The problem for modern day church group models is that they are simply too large to allow for every member participation and end up defaulting to a single leader model that literally doesn't need Jesus for the group to function.
Also, Paul didn't say if you belong to such and such a group, you should receive their care. He said, if you belong to body of Christ, the body should be there to strengthen you. It is so normative to accept the varying groups that we can longer hear the simplicity of loving one another without being in the confines of some uniquely defined group. The challenge for communal groups, which tend to be small, will be inclusiveness versus exclusiveness. Over time, the latter will prove to be more valued.
The idea of many members (individuals, but not too many at one time) ministering to one another as Jesus’ body, has been replaced with the idea of many members (varying large church groups) representing an aspect of his body. The varying groups rarely listen to each other, in fact, some think that even considering to do so as an attack on their identity. The idea that each group contributes some unique perspective that eventually brings unity within the One Body of Christ is incredibly naïve at best. The varying groups do no exist for the purpose of building each other up and revealing the whole of Christ. Their purpose is for the promoting and strengthening of themselves, period.
Most desire to grow numerically, but the goal isn't Christ likeness but in group likeness. It would be doubtful that if Jesus really showed up that he would fit in with a particular group's identity. Heaven forbid, He might want to have a glass of wine with the ones that forbid drinking. He didn't fit in 2,000 years ago and when it comes to people defending the need for their group today, not much has changed.
Here is a short history lesson on the early church to document some of the above historical observations.
I. Introduction
The church was composed entirely of Jews, or at least those who adhered to the Mosaic Law, for about the first ten years of its existence. During this period (c. 30-40 A.D.), and for the next few decades, the Gentiles viewed the church as just another sect or offshoot of Judaism. Indeed, at first the church was in danger of becoming just that. Every Christian was a Jew and did everything the average Jew did. He still practiced circumcision and observed all the other precepts of the Mosaic Law (Acts 21: 20; 26:11). Even the apostles continued to observe the customs and laws of the Jews (Acts 3:1; 10:9-16; Gal. 2:11-13). It does not seem to have occurred to them that the death of Christ meant that they were no longer obligated to observe the Mosaic Law. They gave up none of their Jewish heritage. They were simply Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah. They saw no incompatibility between professing obedience to Moses and obedience to Christ. Moreover, they expected any Gentile who wanted to become a member of the church to first become a Jewish proselyte. Of course, this was not at all what the Lord had planned for His church. Such views and practices not only missed the purpose of the Mosaic Law but also tended to make the church another exclusivistic, Judaistic sect rather than the universal body it was intended to be (Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15).
II. Conversion of the Gentiles
It was in God's plans to admit the Gentiles to the church, but not as Jewish proselytes. As usual, this significant event was preceded by preparatory measures. The first of these was the large-scale persecution of the church following the stoning of Stephen (Acts 8:1-4). Ironically, it was Stephen who seems to have had the greatest appreciation of the fact of the demise of the Mosaic institutions and the acceptability of Gentiles for church membership as Gentiles, judging from the accusations brought against him (Acts 6:13,14) and the defense he himself made (Acts 7). However, it may be that his death did more to bring about the fulfillment of his teachings than the teachings themselves did, for his death was the beginning of a widespread persecution against the church which scattered it beyond the confines of Jerusalem and Judea. At first, the gospel was preached only to Jews, but a step away from Jerusalem was a step away from Judaism. This Judaistic hold on the church was loosened somewhat in the conversions the Samaritans and the Ethiopian eunuch.(Acts 8). This took the church half the way to the Gentiles, but something else had to occur before they were admitted: the conversion of Saul (Acts 9). This was necessary because Saul (Paul) was to be God's special apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Rom. 11:13; Gal. 2:7,S). Saul's conversion is usually placed around 35 A.D. Then about 40 A.D. the apostle Peter was sent under the influence of special revelation and direct commandment from God to preach to the household of a Gentile named Cornelius (Acts 10). This was such a momentous event that the Lord saw fit to place His divine imprimatur upon it by giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles in a miraculous display prior to their baptism. This factor later figured heavily in the church's decision that the Gentiles did not have to become Jews to become Christians (Acts 11:1-18; 15:7-11).
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Kingdom of God and Financial Freedom - Principle #2 - There's a Go in Gold
(If you haven't read Principle #1 - Equality, read it first. The two principles only make sense when understood as a single unit.)
Going for the gold should not be confused with being satisfied with gold. The streets of heaven will be paved with gold. Being satisfied with pavement is a very sad state of affairs.
Some have erroneously interpreted Paul’s caution to Timothy about desiring money to mean that money is somehow evil.
10For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
1 Timothy 6:10
But take notice that in this passage Paul isn’t referring to money itself but our desire for it. In other words, when money comes first there is a corruption that inevitably follows. Principle #1 – Equality is a very nice thing to keep in mind as I write about gold. It is difficult to bring equality to the less fortunate when you have just enough for yourself.
However we shouldn’t fear the effects of money as reflected in this prayer,
God, please don’t let me be so rich that I forget you or so poor that I curse you.
The poorest person can find peace with God and the richest person can be at peace as well. In fact there is no economic situation that can stop someone from knowing and loving God.
My goal is to somehow navigate between the extremes and see what the scriptures teach us about not being consumed by our circumstances, especially in the area of our use of TIME and our willingness to GO.
Abraham is considered the father of our faith. When he was asked to go to a land that he did know, he went. This should be normative for every child of God. When God says go, we go.
The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
Genesis 12:1
But here’s what is sometimes forgotten in the equation.
4 So Abram left, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Haran. 5 He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there. Genesis 12:4,5
Abraham didn’t go poor. In fact there were a number of people that had to go with him because they were either indentured servants or slaves. (An indentured servant is a person who willingly gives there time to someone else for an agreed upon price.)
So here is Point #1
Slaves go where their master tells them to go. If Abraham had been a slave or an indentured servant he would not have been able to obey God’s voice.
You need to pause and let this one sink in.
We live in a country of opportunity and freedom that is the envy of most of the world. Our Canadian passport is one of the most sought after passports because it opens more doors for travel than any other passport in the world. And yet, how many Canadians feel free to go wherever and whenever God tells them to?
Something happened in the past two centuries that is different than any time in history. We became indentured servants without knowing it and the cost was to give up our personal freedom, especially in the area of time.
Henry Ford was a genius in creating a system of indentured servants. He paid men $5 a day to work on his production line. He also lowered the daily work day to 8 hours. (This was so he could get 3 shifts out of a 24 hour day.)
Families literally flocked to his factories from all over the country to work for Henry. In so doing, they gave up there personal freedom for about $1,500 a year. A large sum in 1910. Henry is known as the father of modern mass production. He also amassed one of the largest workforces of indentured servants that history had ever seen.
When I left my job at General Motors to go to Bible college a number of eyebrows were raised. How could I leave the security of such a good job?
Years later, I ended up being out of the ministry and my wife and I went to Korea to teach English. After a year, I came back and attended a conference from the organization I had pastored in. I was a little dismayed that they were pushing hard for missions funding. On July 31st of 2001, I knew nothing about teaching English as a second language and on August 28 we were making money and teaching there.
Meanwhile the old paradigm of begging for money to do God's work was alive and well when I arrived home. At the same time, the world is willing to pay for people to come and teach them English with the side affect of sharing our lives with them. I wasn't even financially free, in fact I was a month away from personal bankruptcy, but I was able to go without begging.
It was in Korea that my heart began to yearn to understand business from God's perspective. It wasn't until just recently that God opened my heart and mind to the possibilities that can only come through a business model.
Financially free people never have to ask for money to Go where God wants them to go.
This leads us to Point #2
Security is a myth that is dangled by the few to control the masses. If I said that just a few months ago many would have mocked me. But with the economic meltdown that is happening right now people are shocked to find out that what they had put so much trust in has let them down. Even those with jobs are sitting on pins and needles praying that they won't be next.
The slave has no control over where he goes or what his master decides. A slave’s only hope is that his master is benevolent and makes good decisions.
It has been suggested that immediately following the abolition of slavery in the United States that the slaves’ new freedom made them worse off economically than they had been as slaves. Without the gold, freedom is simply like floating on a raft in the middle of an ocean with no destination in sight.
So how does God speak to his children regarding being slaves.
Paul said, “I will not be mastered by anything.” (1 Cor 6:12)
Paul knew freedom. He travelled where he wanted, when he wanted. He not only provided for himself but others.
32"Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33I have not coveted anyone's silver or gold or clothing. 34You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. Acts 20:32-34
Paul’s business of tent making allowed him to travel where he wanted and when he wanted. Not only that, but it provided for others. Paul did not only talk or pray about equality, he brought it into existence. He was never diminished by doing so. The more he helped others, the more he gained. He really understood the idea of marketplace Christianity. As he ran his business he was able to mix with people and share his faith.
This story is often overlooked by many Christians who are caught in the mindset of being an indentured servant. The idea of rewards for those who increased in wealth and using it for kingdom purposes, like bringing equality, is a mystery and/or perplexes many Christians.
Luke 19:11-26 he tells the parable of the Ten Minas. A mina was equal to about 1/3 of a year’s wages. In this story, one man used the opportunity to make a mina into 10. The only way to do that would have been by using some kind of a business model. Another man made his mina into 5.
We need to pause and listen seriously to what Jesus thought of these two men.
17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.' The one with 5 was put in charge of 5 cities.
There were also 7 slaves who went and spent the money on themselves and it was not a good day for them when the master returned.
And then there was the one who hid his mina in the ground.
20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'
25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'
26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.
Luke 19:20-26
It seems in Jesus’ view of the kingdom, the rich do get richer.
Jesus’ encounter with the man who hid his mina leads us to Point #4
With the economic meltdown that is currently happening, are the millionaires of this world really afraid? Is the guy or gal that owns Tim Horton’s afraid. They might not get their biggest profits this year but more than likely they will take their trip to Cancun or Banff just likely they always do.
What I am hearing from many people, Christians and non-Christians who are indentured servants is fear? There is an endless list in the Bible for us to not be afraid and yet many Christians are caught in its vice-like grip.
Even churches are feeling the effects of this downturn. Pastors will be laid off and/or salaries will be decreased. Building programs will be scaled back or stalled altogether. The idea that God gave the vision but our economy determines its outcome is very real. The idea is to hang on until the economy goes back to what it was and we can have our sense of security and then we can move forward with God's vision.
Slaves are always stuck with whatever the circumstances are at the moment.
Interestingly enough, I was talking with a businessman this week and he is planning a significant expansion of his business. For him, this downturn simply means there are more people available to work for him and at a lower wage to boot.
Business people think differently. They are creative and expand when others are like deer caught in the headlights. Successful business people are never motivated by fear. Even if failure does befall them, they don’t shrink away in fear but rather they learn the lesson and continue to seek freedom.
Does that mean that everyone that works for someone else is motivated by fear. Of course not. Many have learned that whatsoever state they are in to be content. Nevertheless, without funds channeling through their lives they to will have to cut back on the number of orphans or widows they are currently caring for. They will miss simple opportunities of doing more and equality in our world will be an unrealized dream.
There are many people who only dream of the opportunities that we as Canadians have. They can’t imagine someone thumbing their nose at simple opportunities that they would literally give their right arm to have. They are the ones who will face the harshest realities of this economic collapse, as help from Canada decreases. There are many people who have been hard working employees and were very generous but even they can’t give what they don’t have.
But I also know many Christians who will be caught in the trap of fear and will not explore business opportunities to overcome their financial distress. They are hoping and praying that their place of employment will survive. They never for a moment consider going after financial freedom and still desire the myth of security. The goal of global equality has never seriously touched their imagination.
Even though their place of security has left them in fear, they will not open their minds to the possibility that perhaps financial freedom might have been a better goal.
While many people were thanking Henry Ford for the opportunity of being able to serve him, Henry travelled where he wanted, lived where he wanted and used his time the way he wanted.
The goals of equality and going for the gold are not exclusive ideas. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.
Are there business models out there that would allow everyone to enjoy financial freedom and more importantly freedom to go when God says go? Of course there are. Paul had one 2,000 years ago. I’m in one that allows virtually anyone to enjoy personal financial freedom.
We are living in a day when the opportunity to be in business has never been more accessible. The current economic crisis gives us the opportunity to look at the myth of security without the possibility of being equal to the person we work for. Or we can challenge ourselves to step away from the false security of being an indentured servant and become the master of our time and our wealth.
Remarkably, in a time when our governments and corporate leaders are struggling for answers, those who are willing to make a slight adjustment in their goals and aligning themselves with Biblical values of being financially free with the purpose of bringing equality, we can radically impact our world.
If you are free to go when God says GO, you are not an indentured slave. This freedom isn’t even always tied to job security or even having lots of gold but is really tied to a mindset of obedience to God, desiring equality for all and understanding God does not have slaves. We are his children.
I close with a mini biography of a lady who understood the privilege that every child of God has to be free to go and bring equality. Her name is Gladys Aylward.
Aylward was born of a working-class family in Edmonton, London in 1902. Although forced into domestic service at an early age, she always had an ambition to go overseas as a missionary, and studied with great determination in order to be fitted for the role, only to be turned down by the China Inland Mission because her academic background was inadequate.
Her determination was such that, in 1930, she spent her life savings on a passage to Yuncheng, Shanxi Province, China, where she founded The Inn of the Eight Happinesses (八福客棧) (The Hollywood film changed this to The Inn of the Sixth Happiness) in a remote and backward area. For a time she served as an assistant to the Chinese government as a "foot inspector" by touring the countryside to enforce the new law against footbinding young Chinese girls. She met with much success in a field that had produced much resistance, including sometimes violence against the inspectors.
In 1938, the region was invaded by Japanese forces, and Aylward led ninety-four children to safety over the mountains. She remained in China after World War II, later moving back to England. Later still, she decided to return to China, but was denied re-entry by the Communist Chinese government and settled in Taiwan in 1953.
She died on January 3, 1970, and is buried in a small cemetery on the campus of Christ's College in Guandu, Taipei County. She was known as 艾偉德 (Ai-wei-de, 'Virtuous One') to the Chinese.
Going for the gold should not be confused with being satisfied with gold. The streets of heaven will be paved with gold. Being satisfied with pavement is a very sad state of affairs.
Some have erroneously interpreted Paul’s caution to Timothy about desiring money to mean that money is somehow evil.
10For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
1 Timothy 6:10
But take notice that in this passage Paul isn’t referring to money itself but our desire for it. In other words, when money comes first there is a corruption that inevitably follows. Principle #1 – Equality is a very nice thing to keep in mind as I write about gold. It is difficult to bring equality to the less fortunate when you have just enough for yourself.
However we shouldn’t fear the effects of money as reflected in this prayer,
God, please don’t let me be so rich that I forget you or so poor that I curse you.
The poorest person can find peace with God and the richest person can be at peace as well. In fact there is no economic situation that can stop someone from knowing and loving God.
My goal is to somehow navigate between the extremes and see what the scriptures teach us about not being consumed by our circumstances, especially in the area of our use of TIME and our willingness to GO.
Abraham is considered the father of our faith. When he was asked to go to a land that he did know, he went. This should be normative for every child of God. When God says go, we go.
The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
Genesis 12:1
But here’s what is sometimes forgotten in the equation.
4 So Abram left, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Haran. 5 He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there. Genesis 12:4,5
Abraham didn’t go poor. In fact there were a number of people that had to go with him because they were either indentured servants or slaves. (An indentured servant is a person who willingly gives there time to someone else for an agreed upon price.)
So here is Point #1
Only a free person can go where they want.
Slaves go where their master tells them to go. If Abraham had been a slave or an indentured servant he would not have been able to obey God’s voice.
You need to pause and let this one sink in.
We live in a country of opportunity and freedom that is the envy of most of the world. Our Canadian passport is one of the most sought after passports because it opens more doors for travel than any other passport in the world. And yet, how many Canadians feel free to go wherever and whenever God tells them to?
Something happened in the past two centuries that is different than any time in history. We became indentured servants without knowing it and the cost was to give up our personal freedom, especially in the area of time.
Henry Ford was a genius in creating a system of indentured servants. He paid men $5 a day to work on his production line. He also lowered the daily work day to 8 hours. (This was so he could get 3 shifts out of a 24 hour day.)
Families literally flocked to his factories from all over the country to work for Henry. In so doing, they gave up there personal freedom for about $1,500 a year. A large sum in 1910. Henry is known as the father of modern mass production. He also amassed one of the largest workforces of indentured servants that history had ever seen.
When I left my job at General Motors to go to Bible college a number of eyebrows were raised. How could I leave the security of such a good job?
Years later, I ended up being out of the ministry and my wife and I went to Korea to teach English. After a year, I came back and attended a conference from the organization I had pastored in. I was a little dismayed that they were pushing hard for missions funding. On July 31st of 2001, I knew nothing about teaching English as a second language and on August 28 we were making money and teaching there.
Meanwhile the old paradigm of begging for money to do God's work was alive and well when I arrived home. At the same time, the world is willing to pay for people to come and teach them English with the side affect of sharing our lives with them. I wasn't even financially free, in fact I was a month away from personal bankruptcy, but I was able to go without begging.
It was in Korea that my heart began to yearn to understand business from God's perspective. It wasn't until just recently that God opened my heart and mind to the possibilities that can only come through a business model.
Financially free people never have to ask for money to Go where God wants them to go.
This leads us to Point #2
Security does not equal Freedom
Security is a myth that is dangled by the few to control the masses. If I said that just a few months ago many would have mocked me. But with the economic meltdown that is happening right now people are shocked to find out that what they had put so much trust in has let them down. Even those with jobs are sitting on pins and needles praying that they won't be next.
The slave has no control over where he goes or what his master decides. A slave’s only hope is that his master is benevolent and makes good decisions.
It has been suggested that immediately following the abolition of slavery in the United States that the slaves’ new freedom made them worse off economically than they had been as slaves. Without the gold, freedom is simply like floating on a raft in the middle of an ocean with no destination in sight.
So how does God speak to his children regarding being slaves.
Paul said, “I will not be mastered by anything.” (1 Cor 6:12)
Paul knew freedom. He travelled where he wanted, when he wanted. He not only provided for himself but others.
32"Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33I have not coveted anyone's silver or gold or clothing. 34You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. Acts 20:32-34
Paul’s business of tent making allowed him to travel where he wanted and when he wanted. Not only that, but it provided for others. Paul did not only talk or pray about equality, he brought it into existence. He was never diminished by doing so. The more he helped others, the more he gained. He really understood the idea of marketplace Christianity. As he ran his business he was able to mix with people and share his faith.
Jesus himself, put a high value on us increasing in wealth which leads us to Point #3
Wealth Gives Freedom and Authority
Wealth Gives Freedom and Authority
This story is often overlooked by many Christians who are caught in the mindset of being an indentured servant. The idea of rewards for those who increased in wealth and using it for kingdom purposes, like bringing equality, is a mystery and/or perplexes many Christians.
Luke 19:11-26 he tells the parable of the Ten Minas. A mina was equal to about 1/3 of a year’s wages. In this story, one man used the opportunity to make a mina into 10. The only way to do that would have been by using some kind of a business model. Another man made his mina into 5.
We need to pause and listen seriously to what Jesus thought of these two men.
17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.' The one with 5 was put in charge of 5 cities.
There were also 7 slaves who went and spent the money on themselves and it was not a good day for them when the master returned.
And then there was the one who hid his mina in the ground.
20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'
25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'
26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.
Luke 19:20-26
It seems in Jesus’ view of the kingdom, the rich do get richer.
Jesus’ encounter with the man who hid his mina leads us to Point #4
We are not to be afraid.
With the economic meltdown that is currently happening, are the millionaires of this world really afraid? Is the guy or gal that owns Tim Horton’s afraid. They might not get their biggest profits this year but more than likely they will take their trip to Cancun or Banff just likely they always do.
What I am hearing from many people, Christians and non-Christians who are indentured servants is fear? There is an endless list in the Bible for us to not be afraid and yet many Christians are caught in its vice-like grip.
Even churches are feeling the effects of this downturn. Pastors will be laid off and/or salaries will be decreased. Building programs will be scaled back or stalled altogether. The idea that God gave the vision but our economy determines its outcome is very real. The idea is to hang on until the economy goes back to what it was and we can have our sense of security and then we can move forward with God's vision.
Slaves are always stuck with whatever the circumstances are at the moment.
Interestingly enough, I was talking with a businessman this week and he is planning a significant expansion of his business. For him, this downturn simply means there are more people available to work for him and at a lower wage to boot.
Business people think differently. They are creative and expand when others are like deer caught in the headlights. Successful business people are never motivated by fear. Even if failure does befall them, they don’t shrink away in fear but rather they learn the lesson and continue to seek freedom.
Does that mean that everyone that works for someone else is motivated by fear. Of course not. Many have learned that whatsoever state they are in to be content. Nevertheless, without funds channeling through their lives they to will have to cut back on the number of orphans or widows they are currently caring for. They will miss simple opportunities of doing more and equality in our world will be an unrealized dream.
There are many people who only dream of the opportunities that we as Canadians have. They can’t imagine someone thumbing their nose at simple opportunities that they would literally give their right arm to have. They are the ones who will face the harshest realities of this economic collapse, as help from Canada decreases. There are many people who have been hard working employees and were very generous but even they can’t give what they don’t have.
But I also know many Christians who will be caught in the trap of fear and will not explore business opportunities to overcome their financial distress. They are hoping and praying that their place of employment will survive. They never for a moment consider going after financial freedom and still desire the myth of security. The goal of global equality has never seriously touched their imagination.
Even though their place of security has left them in fear, they will not open their minds to the possibility that perhaps financial freedom might have been a better goal.
While many people were thanking Henry Ford for the opportunity of being able to serve him, Henry travelled where he wanted, lived where he wanted and used his time the way he wanted.
The goals of equality and going for the gold are not exclusive ideas. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.
Are there business models out there that would allow everyone to enjoy financial freedom and more importantly freedom to go when God says go? Of course there are. Paul had one 2,000 years ago. I’m in one that allows virtually anyone to enjoy personal financial freedom.
We are living in a day when the opportunity to be in business has never been more accessible. The current economic crisis gives us the opportunity to look at the myth of security without the possibility of being equal to the person we work for. Or we can challenge ourselves to step away from the false security of being an indentured servant and become the master of our time and our wealth.
Remarkably, in a time when our governments and corporate leaders are struggling for answers, those who are willing to make a slight adjustment in their goals and aligning themselves with Biblical values of being financially free with the purpose of bringing equality, we can radically impact our world.
If you are free to go when God says GO, you are not an indentured slave. This freedom isn’t even always tied to job security or even having lots of gold but is really tied to a mindset of obedience to God, desiring equality for all and understanding God does not have slaves. We are his children.
I close with a mini biography of a lady who understood the privilege that every child of God has to be free to go and bring equality. Her name is Gladys Aylward.
Aylward was born of a working-class family in Edmonton, London in 1902. Although forced into domestic service at an early age, she always had an ambition to go overseas as a missionary, and studied with great determination in order to be fitted for the role, only to be turned down by the China Inland Mission because her academic background was inadequate.
Her determination was such that, in 1930, she spent her life savings on a passage to Yuncheng, Shanxi Province, China, where she founded The Inn of the Eight Happinesses (八福客棧) (The Hollywood film changed this to The Inn of the Sixth Happiness) in a remote and backward area. For a time she served as an assistant to the Chinese government as a "foot inspector" by touring the countryside to enforce the new law against footbinding young Chinese girls. She met with much success in a field that had produced much resistance, including sometimes violence against the inspectors.
In 1938, the region was invaded by Japanese forces, and Aylward led ninety-four children to safety over the mountains. She remained in China after World War II, later moving back to England. Later still, she decided to return to China, but was denied re-entry by the Communist Chinese government and settled in Taiwan in 1953.
She died on January 3, 1970, and is buried in a small cemetery on the campus of Christ's College in Guandu, Taipei County. She was known as 艾偉德 (Ai-wei-de, 'Virtuous One') to the Chinese.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The Kingdom of God and Financial Freedom – Principle #1 Equality
Jesus said,
24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.
Matthew 6:24
"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?"
Luke 16:10-11
For many years I didn’t see what the Bible taught about money. I was caught in the mindset of working, paying my bills and tithing to my local church. I experienced both success and near bankruptcy during this time. If someone said do you serve money, I always answered no.
When I was working at General Motors as a toolmaker, I had a certain amount of financial success. I gave generously to my church but the scriptures that talked extensively of caring for the oppressed were in most part, ignored and not understood by me. It wasn't that they were difficult to understand but it was like there was a cloud over my thinking to really appreciate them.
I always had small misgivings about where my trust really was, God or GM, but I managed to push those insecurities into the background. I even proved that I wasn’t a slave to GM when I quit this well paying, very secure job. I managed to go to Bible College for 3 years, with 3 young children and came out of that experience with no debt. I then went and pastored for 5 years in a small northern community for 5 years, making a third of the wages that I had made at General Motors. We were poor but my kids never knew it. In all of this, I really didn’t understand the basic teachings of finances that I would like to share with you.
One of my favorite studies in the past was the topic of the endtimes. A key passage that is often ignored by endtime teachers is found in Matthew 25,
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
Matthew 25:31-45
I am a little shocked by how Jesus separated the sheep from the goats. It was essentially over the issue of the handling worldly wealth. Providing the basic necessities of life: food, water, clothing, and friendship to those who have less than us.
I come from a church tradition where tithes and offerings get dispersed in this order: buildings, salaries, programs, district office, missions and if anything is left over, some form of benevolence.
For some reason, a simple to understand verse that speaks specifically about caring for the poor was used by me to take up an offering for the above priorities.
1Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.
1 Corinthians 16:1-2.
I often quoted from verse 2 when taking up the offering at church. I know it is often printed on tithing envelopes. But the context of this passage was that it was a collection for the oppressed and likely people the Corinthians would never meet.
As a follow up to this passage Paul writes this about a year later.
8I am not commanding you, but I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others. 9For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.
10And here is my advice about what is best for you in this matter: Last year you were the first not only to give but also to have the desire to do so. 11Now finish the work, so that your eager willingness to do it may be matched by your completion of it, according to your means. 12For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have.
13Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, 15as it is written: "He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little."
2 Corinthians 8:8-15
This finally gets me to Principle #1 in dealing with finances.
Principle #1 - EQUALITY
Our first priority in handling money should be the goal of equality. This is equality on a global basis.
When we hear a kingdom word like equality, our immediate response should be joy. And for some it may be. But for those who might be more like me, it may mean a big pang of fear, or a quick dismissal or maybe it feels like a small bone caught in your throat.
Some people have rejected the idea of a good God on the basic premise of “Why would a good God allow innocent children to die needlessly of hunger and malnutrion.” As a Christian, I somehow closed my ears to that argument and yet it has significant merit.
The reality is that God weeps over every person that has been oppressed and He expects His people to do something about it. My heart was closed to this concept for most of my 30+ years as a Christian. It wasn’t that I wasn’t giving away money, it was that I wasn’t fervently seeking EQUALITY in our world.
The more I meditate on this one concept I am astonished at how much of the evil in the world would be eliminated if we simply desired and acted upon this one principle.
How many trillions have been spent on war or how many millions have been spent on toothpaste for whiter teeth or how many billions have been spent buying bricks for beautiful edifices while children drink contaminated water and fill their bellies with dirt.
Equality would get our priorities straight. Surprisingly, I don’t think we would do without anything of value, in fact, we would even prosper more if we established this as a priority. How much of our taxes goes to lining the pockets of those who have the most and building bombs that supposedly have the purpose of bringing freedom? The waste and excess could be RRRRRRolled back considerably if equality became a real goal.
Praying about equality cannot be done passively. It does require a right understanding of giving and receiving. It requires us to take action but it does not allow us to make beggars of others. This simple caution steers us in a much more creative process of things like micro loans and teaching people to fish.
Let’s not confuse the kingdom principle of EQUALITY with forced equality that is advocated by power mongers in order to control the masses.
I tentatively think the next principle is going to be "There's a Go in Gold".
24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.
Matthew 6:24
"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?"
Luke 16:10-11
For many years I didn’t see what the Bible taught about money. I was caught in the mindset of working, paying my bills and tithing to my local church. I experienced both success and near bankruptcy during this time. If someone said do you serve money, I always answered no.
When I was working at General Motors as a toolmaker, I had a certain amount of financial success. I gave generously to my church but the scriptures that talked extensively of caring for the oppressed were in most part, ignored and not understood by me. It wasn't that they were difficult to understand but it was like there was a cloud over my thinking to really appreciate them.
I always had small misgivings about where my trust really was, God or GM, but I managed to push those insecurities into the background. I even proved that I wasn’t a slave to GM when I quit this well paying, very secure job. I managed to go to Bible College for 3 years, with 3 young children and came out of that experience with no debt. I then went and pastored for 5 years in a small northern community for 5 years, making a third of the wages that I had made at General Motors. We were poor but my kids never knew it. In all of this, I really didn’t understand the basic teachings of finances that I would like to share with you.
One of my favorite studies in the past was the topic of the endtimes. A key passage that is often ignored by endtime teachers is found in Matthew 25,
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
Matthew 25:31-45
I am a little shocked by how Jesus separated the sheep from the goats. It was essentially over the issue of the handling worldly wealth. Providing the basic necessities of life: food, water, clothing, and friendship to those who have less than us.
I come from a church tradition where tithes and offerings get dispersed in this order: buildings, salaries, programs, district office, missions and if anything is left over, some form of benevolence.
For some reason, a simple to understand verse that speaks specifically about caring for the poor was used by me to take up an offering for the above priorities.
1Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.
1 Corinthians 16:1-2.
I often quoted from verse 2 when taking up the offering at church. I know it is often printed on tithing envelopes. But the context of this passage was that it was a collection for the oppressed and likely people the Corinthians would never meet.
As a follow up to this passage Paul writes this about a year later.
8I am not commanding you, but I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others. 9For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.
10And here is my advice about what is best for you in this matter: Last year you were the first not only to give but also to have the desire to do so. 11Now finish the work, so that your eager willingness to do it may be matched by your completion of it, according to your means. 12For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have.
13Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, 15as it is written: "He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little."
2 Corinthians 8:8-15
This finally gets me to Principle #1 in dealing with finances.
Principle #1 - EQUALITY
Our first priority in handling money should be the goal of equality. This is equality on a global basis.
When we hear a kingdom word like equality, our immediate response should be joy. And for some it may be. But for those who might be more like me, it may mean a big pang of fear, or a quick dismissal or maybe it feels like a small bone caught in your throat.
Some people have rejected the idea of a good God on the basic premise of “Why would a good God allow innocent children to die needlessly of hunger and malnutrion.” As a Christian, I somehow closed my ears to that argument and yet it has significant merit.
The reality is that God weeps over every person that has been oppressed and He expects His people to do something about it. My heart was closed to this concept for most of my 30+ years as a Christian. It wasn’t that I wasn’t giving away money, it was that I wasn’t fervently seeking EQUALITY in our world.
The more I meditate on this one concept I am astonished at how much of the evil in the world would be eliminated if we simply desired and acted upon this one principle.
How many trillions have been spent on war or how many millions have been spent on toothpaste for whiter teeth or how many billions have been spent buying bricks for beautiful edifices while children drink contaminated water and fill their bellies with dirt.
Equality would get our priorities straight. Surprisingly, I don’t think we would do without anything of value, in fact, we would even prosper more if we established this as a priority. How much of our taxes goes to lining the pockets of those who have the most and building bombs that supposedly have the purpose of bringing freedom? The waste and excess could be RRRRRRolled back considerably if equality became a real goal.
Praying about equality cannot be done passively. It does require a right understanding of giving and receiving. It requires us to take action but it does not allow us to make beggars of others. This simple caution steers us in a much more creative process of things like micro loans and teaching people to fish.
Let’s not confuse the kingdom principle of EQUALITY with forced equality that is advocated by power mongers in order to control the masses.
I tentatively think the next principle is going to be "There's a Go in Gold".
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Hirelings and Pastor’s Wages
Is a pastor a pastor because of a wage or because he believes that he is a shepherd called to encourage and equip a group of people.
The simplest way to find this out is to stop the paycheque.
11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. 12 But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. 13 The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep."
John 10:11-13
Ezekiel spoke about false shepherds.
"1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? 3 You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. 4 You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. 5 So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals. 6 My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them."
Ezekiel 34: 1-6
How do many shepherds define their sheep? There is some varying schools of thought as to whether a pastor wants to know if a parishioner is giving towards his salary. In the long run there is an expectation that a pastor's sheep are those that pay for his services.
How do parishioners define who their pastor is. I found this out when I was fired as a pastor and I think it was the greatest gift I could have received. The day I stopped getting paid was the day people no longer recognized me as their pastor. Their definition of a pastor was one who takes their money.
Many pastors are trapped into serving a group of people as a hireling and many church members feel they need to pay to have his services. The motives and the giving of respect are confused because of the exchange of money.
What happens when the salaries decrease or there is a staffing cutback. The ministers that were "called", simply leave for "greener" pastures. What else can they do but find a group of people that are willing to pay them? Getting a job or owning a business is out of the question. Many are stuck with a lifelong dependency on the sheep.
Pastors talk forever and a day about being “called” by God to a local church. Amazingly one of the major determining factors for knowing they are called is by the amount of dollars that are exchanged. They and their parishioners even feel they are biblically mandated to receive a wage. One of the most popular verses which is interpreted to support the paying of pastors is,
“The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.” 18For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,"[b] and "The worker deserves his wages."
1 Timothy 5:17,18
And yet paying wages and giving honor are distinct from each other. The reward for a local elder is honor, even double honor. This wasn’t a codeword for money.
This verse clearly distinguishes finances from honor.
“Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”
Romans 13:7
Here is an overlooked passage quoting Paul as he charged how elders were to conduct themselves,
"Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33I have not coveted anyone's silver or gold or clothing. 34You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. 35In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' "
Acts 20:32-35
No doubt Paul argues that an apostle (not a local elder) has a right to be helped but he was careful not to receive a wage if it became a hireling model and his motives for bringing the gospel could be questioned.
“11If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?
But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. 13Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
15But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast. 16Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.”
1 Cor. 9:11-18
The selling of the gospel has become such common practice that God’s people think everyone who preaches should receive an “honorarium”. Many preachers believe this quite passionately. This is no different than paying for a good singer.
You can go to a lot of single person ministries out there and I guarantee that they will give you a charitable receipt to support them. They likely even donate to their own ministry. And even though it is illegal to get a donation receipt for giving to a specific person, lots of churches and ministries skirt this issue by making themselves an employee of their ministry. They then give to their ministry which is really just themselves.
Most churches have more than one elder and yet only the one called pastor gets paid. Why doesn’t every mature believer who becomes an elder get paid? Why is it that the weak are the ones paying the strong? The transaction goes like this, the strong give spiritual support and the weak give financial support. A good reason to become strong, I guess.
Paul didn’t seem to think that,
7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
2 Thess. 3:7-10
Why is there such a distinction between lay people and professional clergy? It seems the guy asking for money every week for himself deserves special recognition because he humbly takes his sheep’s money.
"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
The simplest way to find this out is to stop the paycheque.
11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. 12 But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. 13 The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep."
John 10:11-13
Ezekiel spoke about false shepherds.
"1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? 3 You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. 4 You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. 5 So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals. 6 My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them."
Ezekiel 34: 1-6
How do many shepherds define their sheep? There is some varying schools of thought as to whether a pastor wants to know if a parishioner is giving towards his salary. In the long run there is an expectation that a pastor's sheep are those that pay for his services.
How do parishioners define who their pastor is. I found this out when I was fired as a pastor and I think it was the greatest gift I could have received. The day I stopped getting paid was the day people no longer recognized me as their pastor. Their definition of a pastor was one who takes their money.
Many pastors are trapped into serving a group of people as a hireling and many church members feel they need to pay to have his services. The motives and the giving of respect are confused because of the exchange of money.
What happens when the salaries decrease or there is a staffing cutback. The ministers that were "called", simply leave for "greener" pastures. What else can they do but find a group of people that are willing to pay them? Getting a job or owning a business is out of the question. Many are stuck with a lifelong dependency on the sheep.
Pastors talk forever and a day about being “called” by God to a local church. Amazingly one of the major determining factors for knowing they are called is by the amount of dollars that are exchanged. They and their parishioners even feel they are biblically mandated to receive a wage. One of the most popular verses which is interpreted to support the paying of pastors is,
“The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.” 18For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,"[b] and "The worker deserves his wages."
1 Timothy 5:17,18
And yet paying wages and giving honor are distinct from each other. The reward for a local elder is honor, even double honor. This wasn’t a codeword for money.
This verse clearly distinguishes finances from honor.
“Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”
Romans 13:7
Here is an overlooked passage quoting Paul as he charged how elders were to conduct themselves,
"Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33I have not coveted anyone's silver or gold or clothing. 34You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. 35In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' "
Acts 20:32-35
No doubt Paul argues that an apostle (not a local elder) has a right to be helped but he was careful not to receive a wage if it became a hireling model and his motives for bringing the gospel could be questioned.
“11If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?
But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. 13Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
15But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast. 16Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.”
1 Cor. 9:11-18
The selling of the gospel has become such common practice that God’s people think everyone who preaches should receive an “honorarium”. Many preachers believe this quite passionately. This is no different than paying for a good singer.
You can go to a lot of single person ministries out there and I guarantee that they will give you a charitable receipt to support them. They likely even donate to their own ministry. And even though it is illegal to get a donation receipt for giving to a specific person, lots of churches and ministries skirt this issue by making themselves an employee of their ministry. They then give to their ministry which is really just themselves.
Most churches have more than one elder and yet only the one called pastor gets paid. Why doesn’t every mature believer who becomes an elder get paid? Why is it that the weak are the ones paying the strong? The transaction goes like this, the strong give spiritual support and the weak give financial support. A good reason to become strong, I guess.
Paul didn’t seem to think that,
7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
2 Thess. 3:7-10
Why is there such a distinction between lay people and professional clergy? It seems the guy asking for money every week for himself deserves special recognition because he humbly takes his sheep’s money.
"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Tithing, Malachi 3, Robbing God - Justice
How did tithing turn into the opposite of its intended meaning? Why did it become a collection of money for the purpose of sermons, buildings and programs? It was never used that way in the OT.
If we know anything about God, we know that He desires justice. And yet, rich people in the Old Testament were robbing Him of justice. How? By not tithing.
Who was the tithe for? The truth is verse 5 describes God's plan for justice and it was up to the rich land/herd owners to provide proper wages and a tithe from the land for the widow/orphan/alien/Levites.
It's fascinating that many bibles put a title between verse 5 and 6 of Malachi 3 called Robbing God, giving the impression that a new thought has started. I wonder if it was a religious minded editor that wanted the tithes to flow into the church coffers and away from those in real need?
5 "So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me," says the LORD Almighty.
6 "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you," says the LORD Almighty. "But you ask, 'How are we to return?'
8 "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. "But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' "In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house.
Malachi 3:5-10
What is even more confusing is that offerings today do not reflect the call for justice that both 1 Corinthians 16:2 or Malachi 3 reflect. So the question remains the same today as it was in Malachi's time,
If we know anything about God, we know that He desires justice. And yet, rich people in the Old Testament were robbing Him of justice. How? By not tithing.
Who was the tithe for? The truth is verse 5 describes God's plan for justice and it was up to the rich land/herd owners to provide proper wages and a tithe from the land for the widow/orphan/alien/Levites.
It's fascinating that many bibles put a title between verse 5 and 6 of Malachi 3 called Robbing God, giving the impression that a new thought has started. I wonder if it was a religious minded editor that wanted the tithes to flow into the church coffers and away from those in real need?
5 "So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me," says the LORD Almighty.
6 "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you," says the LORD Almighty. "But you ask, 'How are we to return?'
8 "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. "But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' "In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house.
Malachi 3:5-10
What is even more confusing is that offerings today do not reflect the call for justice that both 1 Corinthians 16:2 or Malachi 3 reflect. So the question remains the same today as it was in Malachi's time,
Who is Robbing God?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Accountability Paradox
There is much ado about accountability within the body of Christ and yet I am not sure how this happens or if it even exists.
The premise behind accountability is that people will hold each other accountable to the teachings of the Bible. This isn’t to control or manipulate but rather to build one another up.
But what if the group you are accountable to, teaches error?
The reason for the 1,000’s of different church groups is because they believe that some of the other groups are teaching error. Some even believe they are the only ones with the whole truth.
So if a church group is teaching an error, who holds them accountable? The members of the group are supposedly the ones to hold them accountable. But the reason people are members of the group is that they agree with the error of the group. If a member in the group learns something that the group thought was truth but in reality was an error, how do they get the group to be accountable to their error?
I know a woman that was part of a group that decided women must wear hats as a sign of submission. She accepted that rule for many years and then had a change of thinking that determined that this rule was not for today and was in fact a sign of spiritual pride and elitism. When she no longer wore her hat she was asked to leave her church which she had devoted over 25 years of her life to.
They said she was in rebellion and was not accountable.
It seems to me that churches have become more like fortresses. You have to believe what they believe to belong. And if your beliefs change, you must leave otherwise you cause dissension. When you do leave you are considered to be in rebellion and not accountable to anyone.
In essence, the desire to walk in integrity with your own beliefs is considered secondary to the group’s need to uphold its teachings. The only people that see things differently and have the perspective to help the group grow are asked to leave or are shunned with silence because they disagree. In other words, the group is more important than any one person.
Some groups teach that tithing to their local group is a requirement for membership and/or leadership within the group. If a leader in the group came to the realization that tithing is a false teaching, he would not be able to have a voice within the group. When he points out that the verses used to support tithing are really verses that teach caring for the poor, he is considered to be a rabble-rouser. As soon as he stops tithing he can no longer be a leader. If he continues to tithe, he violates his conscience and does not walk in integrity.
I remember having breakfast with a pastor friend of mine from a different denomination. We enjoyed being with each other on numerous occasions. I suggested to him that it would be nice to get our men’s groups together. His face went pale with the suggestion. It seems, that what we could do personally and enjoyably, could not be tolerated at the group level.
It would seem that groups will invariably violate some form of personal freedom of expression or thought. I used to accept this paradox quite comfortably. Now, it seems like a complete mystery to me that people think God would desire all of these mini fortresses.
The premise behind accountability is that people will hold each other accountable to the teachings of the Bible. This isn’t to control or manipulate but rather to build one another up.
But what if the group you are accountable to, teaches error?
The reason for the 1,000’s of different church groups is because they believe that some of the other groups are teaching error. Some even believe they are the only ones with the whole truth.
So if a church group is teaching an error, who holds them accountable? The members of the group are supposedly the ones to hold them accountable. But the reason people are members of the group is that they agree with the error of the group. If a member in the group learns something that the group thought was truth but in reality was an error, how do they get the group to be accountable to their error?
I know a woman that was part of a group that decided women must wear hats as a sign of submission. She accepted that rule for many years and then had a change of thinking that determined that this rule was not for today and was in fact a sign of spiritual pride and elitism. When she no longer wore her hat she was asked to leave her church which she had devoted over 25 years of her life to.
They said she was in rebellion and was not accountable.
It seems to me that churches have become more like fortresses. You have to believe what they believe to belong. And if your beliefs change, you must leave otherwise you cause dissension. When you do leave you are considered to be in rebellion and not accountable to anyone.
In essence, the desire to walk in integrity with your own beliefs is considered secondary to the group’s need to uphold its teachings. The only people that see things differently and have the perspective to help the group grow are asked to leave or are shunned with silence because they disagree. In other words, the group is more important than any one person.
Some groups teach that tithing to their local group is a requirement for membership and/or leadership within the group. If a leader in the group came to the realization that tithing is a false teaching, he would not be able to have a voice within the group. When he points out that the verses used to support tithing are really verses that teach caring for the poor, he is considered to be a rabble-rouser. As soon as he stops tithing he can no longer be a leader. If he continues to tithe, he violates his conscience and does not walk in integrity.
I remember having breakfast with a pastor friend of mine from a different denomination. We enjoyed being with each other on numerous occasions. I suggested to him that it would be nice to get our men’s groups together. His face went pale with the suggestion. It seems, that what we could do personally and enjoyably, could not be tolerated at the group level.
It would seem that groups will invariably violate some form of personal freedom of expression or thought. I used to accept this paradox quite comfortably. Now, it seems like a complete mystery to me that people think God would desire all of these mini fortresses.
Monday, February 9, 2009
How High Can a Flea Jump?
The problem of unbelief.
If you found someone living in a remote village that was living in the stone age and whisked them away to our modern culture, what would be their reaction? Would they embrace it easily? Would they wonder how they could have ever lived without it?
Would they believe you, if you told them about a light switch and that by simply flicking the switch, the room would light up? What if you had a power failure just before they made their first attempt at turning on the light? Would it be more difficult to get them to try the second time?
How often have you and I been seduced into believing something didn’t work because of circumstances not directly associated with what we are being asked to put our trust in. Or is it simply a new idea that you aren't familiar with?
A young, pregnant Eskimo woman was anxiously awaiting the arrival of her new baby. Her mother had taught her everything there was to be known. One of the most difficult things her mother had to teach her was that if there was something wrong with the baby the best thing to do would be to simply put the baby out on the ice. Life was almost impossible for healthy babies let alone ones with physical challenges.
Just before the birth, the woman's mother died and she was all alone. She remembered everything her mother had told her and delivered a beautiful baby girl. But too her horror, her baby had no teeth. One cannot survive without teeth in the harshness of the barren north. This must be one of the terrible deformities that her mother had warned her about. After all, if babies were born with no teeth, her mother would have told her. So the faithful daughter put her precious baby out on the ice.
She so desired to honor her mother's memory but she couldn't give up this precious life. She ran out on the ice and took the risk (had faith) of raising a deformed baby.
Here are some examples of how we don't have to be trapped in past failures or wrong lessons. All men aren’t abusive just because 1 man was abusive. Once you have gas in your car, it will run. Just because friends have let us down, doesn’t mean all friends will let us down. The list is endless as to what causes our faith to diminish. And what we sometimes fail to remember is that it wasn’t always the process that failed but a wrong lesson or application that caused the failure.
Learning to discern what caused failure is vital in developing our faith life and overcoming unbelief. Staying open to new ideas is what makes life like a box of chocolates.
If you put some fleas in a small jar and put the lid on it, you could watch them jump and hit the lid for awhile. It won’t take them long to discover jumping too high hurts their heads. Once they have learned the lesson, you can remove the lid and they won’t jump out of the jar. They learned the lesson that jumping too high hurts their head. You could even starve them and although they have the ability to jump out of the open jar, they will simply die believing that jumping too high hurts their head.
What lessons have you learned that has caused you to have unbelief? Did you learn the right lesson?
I write this from the context of having a plan that could literally bring economic equality to the entire world. The challenge is that people have to get 2 people to trust them. This is literally the only thing that has to happen in order to feed the poor, care for orphans and widows, achieve financial freedom and bring equality to all.
What lessons have you learned that stop you from believing this?
If you found someone living in a remote village that was living in the stone age and whisked them away to our modern culture, what would be their reaction? Would they embrace it easily? Would they wonder how they could have ever lived without it?
Would they believe you, if you told them about a light switch and that by simply flicking the switch, the room would light up? What if you had a power failure just before they made their first attempt at turning on the light? Would it be more difficult to get them to try the second time?
How often have you and I been seduced into believing something didn’t work because of circumstances not directly associated with what we are being asked to put our trust in. Or is it simply a new idea that you aren't familiar with?
A young, pregnant Eskimo woman was anxiously awaiting the arrival of her new baby. Her mother had taught her everything there was to be known. One of the most difficult things her mother had to teach her was that if there was something wrong with the baby the best thing to do would be to simply put the baby out on the ice. Life was almost impossible for healthy babies let alone ones with physical challenges.
Just before the birth, the woman's mother died and she was all alone. She remembered everything her mother had told her and delivered a beautiful baby girl. But too her horror, her baby had no teeth. One cannot survive without teeth in the harshness of the barren north. This must be one of the terrible deformities that her mother had warned her about. After all, if babies were born with no teeth, her mother would have told her. So the faithful daughter put her precious baby out on the ice.
She so desired to honor her mother's memory but she couldn't give up this precious life. She ran out on the ice and took the risk (had faith) of raising a deformed baby.
Here are some examples of how we don't have to be trapped in past failures or wrong lessons. All men aren’t abusive just because 1 man was abusive. Once you have gas in your car, it will run. Just because friends have let us down, doesn’t mean all friends will let us down. The list is endless as to what causes our faith to diminish. And what we sometimes fail to remember is that it wasn’t always the process that failed but a wrong lesson or application that caused the failure.
Learning to discern what caused failure is vital in developing our faith life and overcoming unbelief. Staying open to new ideas is what makes life like a box of chocolates.
If you put some fleas in a small jar and put the lid on it, you could watch them jump and hit the lid for awhile. It won’t take them long to discover jumping too high hurts their heads. Once they have learned the lesson, you can remove the lid and they won’t jump out of the jar. They learned the lesson that jumping too high hurts their head. You could even starve them and although they have the ability to jump out of the open jar, they will simply die believing that jumping too high hurts their head.
What lessons have you learned that has caused you to have unbelief? Did you learn the right lesson?
I write this from the context of having a plan that could literally bring economic equality to the entire world. The challenge is that people have to get 2 people to trust them. This is literally the only thing that has to happen in order to feed the poor, care for orphans and widows, achieve financial freedom and bring equality to all.
What lessons have you learned that stop you from believing this?
Thursday, February 5, 2009
The Opposite of Vision
What is the opposite of VISION?
Where there is no vision, the people perish:
Proverbs 29:18
What is the fruit of the way churches today are organized?
8 I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others. 9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.
10 And in this I give advice: It is to your advantage not only to be doing what you began and were desiring to do a year ago; 11 but now you also must complete the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to desire it, so there also may be a completion out of what you have. 12 For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have.
13 For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; 14 but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack—that there may be equality. 15 As it is written, “He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack.”
2 Corinthians 8:8-13
People are dying because of the thousands of divided fragments that are under the label of Christianity. The idea of equality and organizing for weaker brothers and sisters has been forgotten.
This must not continue.
Where there is no vision, the people perish:
Proverbs 29:18
The opposite of VISION
is DIE VISION.
is DIE VISION.
What is the fruit of the way churches today are organized?
They promote DIVISION as if it is a good thing.
Elitism: best doctrine, best teaching, best building, best pastor,
best program, best ...
Will they give up their name for His name?
They don't even know that their name is divisive.
Name one New Testament church?
BTW: Locations are not churches.
Besides, there is only 1 church.
Jesus said, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock
I will build my church,
and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
Matthew 16:18
WHY DO CHURCHES NEED A NAME?
Elitism: best doctrine, best teaching, best building, best pastor,
best program, best ...
Will they give up their name for His name?
They don't even know that their name is divisive.
Name one New Testament church?
BTW: Locations are not churches.
Besides, there is only 1 church.
Jesus said, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock
I will build my church,
and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
Matthew 16:18
WHY DO CHURCHES NEED A NAME?
Hint: No matter how this is answered, equality is rarely considered.
Should equality be a vision within Jesus' church?
8 I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others. 9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.
10 And in this I give advice: It is to your advantage not only to be doing what you began and were desiring to do a year ago; 11 but now you also must complete the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to desire it, so there also may be a completion out of what you have. 12 For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have.
13 For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; 14 but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack—that there may be equality. 15 As it is written, “He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack.”
2 Corinthians 8:8-13
People are dying because of the thousands of divided fragments that are under the label of Christianity. The idea of equality and organizing for weaker brothers and sisters has been forgotten.
This must not continue.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Better Than Starbucks
What can be better than drinking Starbucks coffee?
Going to where Starbucks buys their coffee.
Win a Trip to COSTA RICA
You CAN DO THIS!!!
Going to where Starbucks buys their coffee.
Win a Trip to COSTA RICA
You CAN DO THIS!!!
Caution: This contest is almost too simple. Don't be fooled into thinking it has to be more difficult to work. Do yourself a favor and read this a few times.
Win a trip for two to Costa Rica at an all inclusive resort for 5 nights and make $3,200.
Show Me How
Invest $500 into your own business. You immediately get over $600 in high quality nutritional supplements. Get 2 friends to do the same thing. Help each of them to get 2 people to join them. That means 4 more people have done this. When each of these 4 gets 2 more people to join them,
YOU WIN!!!
Total number of people needed for you to win -- 14.
How many people did you personally get involved?
All you need is 2 people that trust you.
How many people did you personally get involved?
All you need is 2 people that trust you.
(You)
$500
(your 2 friends)
$500 - $500
(You make $200)
(their 2 friends)
$500 - $500 - $500 - $500
(You make $1,000)
(their 2 friends)
$500 - $500 - $500 - $500 - $500 - $500 - $500 - $500
(You make another $2,000)
Total earnings on your $500 investment = $3,200
Your 2 friends will have made $1,200.
Congratulations!!
You have won the trip to
Costa Rica.
Your biggest decision is to decide
on how many friends you will bring with you?
(your 2 friends)
$500 - $500
(You make $200)
(their 2 friends)
$500 - $500 - $500 - $500
(You make $1,000)
(their 2 friends)
$500 - $500 - $500 - $500 - $500 - $500 - $500 - $500
(You make another $2,000)
Total earnings on your $500 investment = $3,200
Your 2 friends will have made $1,200.
Congratulations!!
You have won the trip to
Costa Rica.
Your biggest decision is to decide
on how many friends you will bring with you?
There are no catches, no strings, no hoops.
Yeppers, IT IS THIS SIMPLE.
Yeppers, IT IS THIS SIMPLE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
