A PASTOR'S NEW YEAR RESOLUTION ABOUT PEDESTALS

I'm not into New Year's resolutions, in fact, I'm not even pastoring anymore. But were I to be, I think the number one resolution I would make for the New Year as a pastor would be to____

NOT PERMIT MYSELF TO BE PUT ON A PEDESTAL BY THE PEOPLE I PASTOR.

Pedestals create problems. There is no doubt about that. The dictionary definition for 'Pedestal" the way I'm using it is.."A position of high regard." Granted, there is a rather innocuous, even scriptural way [think double honor] a pastor may be thought of with high regard. But here I'm looking at a different sort of thing, even a lie, that people and pastor may believe that can effectively ruin a ministry if not addressed.

I became aware while pastoring that people in a church may put a pastor on a pedestal in a way that's very unfortunate and even dangerous. It is one of having it all together spiritually or being more committed to Christ than anyone else. But my issue is more with the pastor who tries to place himself there or tries to maintain that position, than with others who have put him there. 

Pedestals are not the best position for real people and to be on one takes too much hiding or being secret about one's self to effectively remain in that exalted position. When a fall comes, and it will, the pain is great and often disillusioning.

I know there are those who don't like knowing of the struggles of ministers because, their argument goes, if THEY [ministers] don't have it together how are we to trust ANYTHING they say? It's almost as if they [ministers] are that person's last bastion of hope for everything to be as it should be in some body's christian life. 

It might should be mentioned at this point that only our Lord deserves to be on a pedestal with that criteria anyway and that is because He is the only one who has it all together in terms of life. 

In fact, to look at a pastor in this manner could make an idol of him were one not careful. [Or maybe just the pulpit or position of pastor is the idol in that person's mind. Who knows!!]

Those who do wish preachers would remain silent about their own struggles sometimes use Ephesians 5:12 as a biblical basis for their objection. This is a verse that says it is a shame to speak of those things done in secret. So, their argument goes, preachers should keep their mouths shut about their own secret struggles or failures. It's a shame for them to mention them from the pulpit the bible says.

It would be good for those folks to actually understand that verse in context I would think. It's speaking of the secret things unbelievers [those in darkness] are presently [present tense] doing and how those things should not be spoken about with affirmation but confronted with light [as children of light] giving direction out of such things.

So unless you believe your pastor to be an unbeliever, the things he might share about his struggles and how God has given grace in them are not the subject of that passage at all.

I believe a major weakness of the modern pulpit is the LACK of identification of the one in the pulpit with those in the pew anyway. [This is that pedestal thing] This weakness may be the single greatest failure of the pulpit. The only greater failure would be to NOT preach the text of scripture itself.

So, how was this pedestal thing corrected in my own pulpit through forty years of pastoring? Whether I was successful in correcting it may be for others to say, of course, but I can give you what I used in my attempt to correct it. Several things were involved and this isn't a complete list at all.

One___I made a commitment within myself to be truthful and express what I really was, not what people wanted to think I was. An example is when I would preach/teach on having intimate time with the Lord, I would be honest about my own struggles and failures in doing so with any solid regularity. This was before I realized the truth that every moment of every day I'm in union and fellowship with Him and special times are good but not essential for fellowship. That is an atmosphere not an activity. 

In the same manner when teaching on not letting the sun go down on anger in James, I would honestly confess that anger was a problem area in my own life. My control struggles were in that category as well. So when I would teach about God being the blessed controller of every event, I would use my own struggle with a need to control as an illustration of the battle that often takes place in a believer.

Earlier in my ministry I was honest with struggles about impure thoughts or actions that were debilitation to my walk with the Lord and I shared how I learned, as a result, ways of focusing my attention on Him during those struggles that led to cleansing and even hope.

So you can see that, in my ministry at least, the people were aware that their pastor was, in reality, a fellow struggler, as evidenced by control issues, anger issues, impure thought issues and a general inability to practice ALL I preach about what a Christian should be and do.

You say, "But doesn't Paul say that the Corinthians should imitate him? Doesn't that mean Paul HAD to live what he preached if he said such a thing?" No__ it doesn't have to mean that at all. In fact, remember that Paul regularly told of his personal struggles, [Romans 7-8] but always found in the Lord what was needed and we ARE to imitate him in that. I say the same to those I pastor. Follow me as I deal with my issues of the flesh and learn to see the work of the Cross of Christ as it does it's true work in deliverance and victory. That's the ONLY way any person other than the Lord can ever recommend himself as one to be followed.

Remember, no one is speaking about details that are salacious in nature. I've found that is really more a matter of a choice of words and an overall willingness to recognize the nature of an audience. On the other hand some people think the word "sex" IS salacious and should never be spoken in public. You can have peculiar people both in the pulpit AND pew remember.

Two___I made a commitment to drop the pomposity and self-righteousness that can come from thinking I'm better or even different than the people served by using the personal pronoun "we" instead of "you." Too much preaching/teaching, IMHO, is crouched in words like___"God wants you to know you will have no victory over sin if you play games with it privately"___instead of__"God wants us to know we will have no victory over sin if we play games with it privately." [If you don't believe the first is often used listen to sermons on the Internet.] 

Let's face it, preachers are ordinary people and face ordinary problems and challenges that other people face. I haven’t “arrived”; I don’t have an exclusive path to God; I am a student of life and not a graduate of life, just like other ordinary people. To pretend otherwise by leaving myself out of the pulpit language used is unworthy and simply the height of spiritual arrogance it seems to me.

Three___I made a commitment to practice what I preached. It was my desire to convey to the people my own hope of BEING what was taught scripturally about behavior. This is NOT a retraction of what was previously stated, but a companion to it. I would often end messages with the prayer that God would deliver me from preaching to others what I refused to have built in my own life. 

The key here is "presently being built." No one of us has arrived at what the Christian life is all about and we're on that journey together. Let's just be honest about that and people will not likely be as tempted to place a minister on a pedestal or a minister will not be as likely to try to climb up there himself.

Besides..spiritual "Acrophobia" [ἄκρον φόβος meaning fear of heights] might be a good phobia to have for any Christian leader.

So with this New Years resolution in mind___I wish you a Happy 2014.

CELEBRATING CHRISTMAS

MERRY CHRISTMAS 2013



Merry Christmas to all of you from Vital Truth Ministries and the Burlesons. I'm trusting this 2013 celebration of Christmas, the Incarnation of our Savior, will be the best yet. I'm also trusting that 2014 will see God's continued blessings on you and your family.

I'm celebrating with you the freedom in Christ that we have received by His Grace accomplished in His doing and dying on the Cross.

I'm ALSO celebrating at this Christmas time, as an American citizen, those who will miss being with their families as they serve in our military to sustain our freedoms as a nation.

I'm looking for the return of the King, whose advent 2000 years ago we celebrate at Christmas, to be in this year of our Lord, 2014.  Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!

FINISHING THE SEVEN MYTHS OF CHRISTMAS

If you will recall, we're confronting seven of the things assumed by most people to be true about the birth of our Lord which may, in fact, be less than correct. Last time we dealt with three of them and I would suggest that you read that post if you have not already. As always, much of what I'm saying others have said first and even better than will I. I'm appreciative of what I've read and have been helped in forming my ideas by some of them. But as the proverbial story goes, having done the work of milking several cows, the finished product of any churned butter is all mine. So what you read are my conclusions, for better or for worse.

All that said, we will now address the fourth myth.

Myth number four___Angels sang as they announced His birth to the shepherds.

I must admit that this IS NOT of earth shattering significance. But the whole idea of angels singing is kind of fun to think about. So with no desire to "burst bubbles" in any one's mind about this, I will address whether angels can sing at all, but more specifically, even if they can, DID they sing when they appeared to the shepherds?

If you believe the text of most of the carols of Christmas you will certainly hold to the idea they can...and did..sing.  Hark the Herald Angels Sing, Oh Little Town of Bethlehem, It Came Upon a Midnight Clear, and even Silent Night, all declare the angels sang at the announcement to the shepherds, if not at the manger itself. This belief is especially helpful I would think since it enables larger churches to have more volunteers involved in Christmas cantatas, since you can always use more singing angels especially if they have a good voice.

I listened this past Sunday to the Christmas carols I joined our fellowship in singing and noticed that the word 'sing" was found to be repeatedly used in the lyrics. I began to wonder why and then I began to be aware that the reason may have been, as much as anything, because it rhymes so well with "king" and "wing."  Just kidding.

But I am thinking that an argument might be made from the scriptures that angels are not said to sing AT ALL. I know about the reference in Job to "sons of God" and the host around His throne singing in Revelation, but there may be some problems textually in making those passages speak of angels.

Arguing from silence however, is never the best method for establishing truth because with that method we could wind up arguing that the disciples NEVER bathed since the bible doesn't specifically say they did or did not. The scriptures only have a veiled reference to disciples bathing in John 13 when Jesus said the one who has been bathed doesn't need anything except his feet washed. So I would think a subject about which the bible is silent generally means we might as well be generally silent about it as well.

But the angels did not sing at the announcement to the shepherds of the birth of Jesus according to the text, and that's the myth I'm addressing. The passage used to say they did is Luke 2:10-14. Those verses say this, "Then the angel SAID to them, 'Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, for unto you is born this day...This shall be a sign to you: you will find the baby wrapped in swaddling clothes...and suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly hosts praising God and SAYING, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men."

I've highlighted the word "saying" in both place it appears. It is the word legonton. [I'm using the English spelling of the Greek word for simplicity.] It is from the Greek word, lego. It is a very common word in the scriptures and it means,"to talk, to speak or to say." It also means to really focus upon the content of what is spoken. It DOESN'T mean SINGING at all.

So why do people assume the angels sang here? I'm guessing it's because of the phrase "praising God" is generally thought to be synonymous with "singing" by most people but that could be incorrect. While the two words, "praising and singing" are closely linked, "praise" is MORE than "singing." It can mean praying, proclaiming, or even shouting. But the general sense of praising is "to speak of the excellence of a person, object, or event." The text indicates whatever message the angels gave, they said or shouted it rather than sang it.

But that wouldn't go over too well in a Christmas cantata at all. So I'll bet, if I were a betting baptist, the angels won't mind at all our saying they sang even if when we get to heaven we find out they didn't sing after all.

Now on to the fifth myth.

Myth number five___There were the shepherds and three Kings at the manger on His birth night.

We've established that the manger may have been located in a private home, [see the last post] and it is pretty clear the shepherds were able to make it to that home the night of His birth, but the three Kings? I'm not so sure that there were in fact three of them and that they came that night. The scriptures may well indicate otherwise.

Matthew is the only gospel writer to tell of the Magi. His task was to write to the Jews about the birth of Jesus so there is much more of a Jewish flavor than say, Luke, whose emphasis was to the gentiles. I will not attempt to explain who and where they came from as that is too broad for my present purposes. You can read all about them on Wikipedia if you like further information on them

Matthew 2:1-2 simply says, "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men [magi] from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” [ESV]

Notice that there is no number given by Matthew and it would be good to remember that most historians say they were from Persia and traveled in bands of a dozen or more, generally on horseback. The number three was settled on probably because of the three kinds of gifts mentioned. Also, they were not kings, but more likely Priests of the Persian religion who studied the stars. In some way they had read the stars and saw a new one and knew something of the Hebrew Prophets predicting the birth of a new King of the Jews and came to pay homage.

They came to Jerusalem  [Matt.2:1]  questioning about it all and word got to Herod who was understandably disturbed at the news. [2:3] He was told by his advisers that there was, in fact, some indication by the prophets of old that this would happen. [2:4-6]  So he promptly told the magi to go to Bethlehem and return to him with word about it all. [2:7-8] They did leave, but here's where it gets a bit dicey.

To assume they went to Bethlehem is to assume something not stated in the text. They did follow the re-appearing star [2:9] which took them to a house where they found the "young child" [not baby and is paidion in Greek which is different than brephos, baby, used in Luke 2:12 and 16.]] with His mother Mary alone. [2:10-11] The text is saying Jesus was NOT a baby but a young child when the magi arrived to offer their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. but it gets even dicy-er. [If there is such a word.]

It's important to note that Luke records after the shepherds left Jesus on the night of His birth that just some eight days later they circumcised the baby and announced the prearranged name given Him as Jesus. [Luke 2:21] Then, forty days later, the time of Mary's purification, according to Jewish law, Mary and Joseph went to Jerusalem to dedicate Jesus according to that same Jewish law. [Luke 2:22-24] This is the time of the experience they had with Simeon and  and Anna. [Luke 2:25-38]

Now the hitch. Luke 2:39 says very clearly they went BACK TO NAZARETH IN GALILEE. But this seems to contradict what is said in Matthew when he records the Magi were warned to go home home another way and forget about Herod. Then Joseph was warned in a dream to take Mary and Jesus and flee to Egypt because, as happened, a furious Herod ordered all the children two and under killed which the scripture sadly records.

There is no problem if it is remembered that a couple of explanations could be understood. Joseph and Mary took Jesus to NAZARETH after Mary's purification and it could be it was to NAZARETH the star led the Magi around the time of his being several months old and it could be it was from NAZARETH that Joseph fled to Egypt for fear of the order to kill the children in Bethlehem and the AREAS AROUND. [Matthew 2:16-18] One hint this might be correct is the use of the name Rachel is used in Matthew 2:18 as she is connected to Galilee as well. Bethlehem was in Judah and considered to be the children of Leah.

But it also could be that Joseph had returned for a visit to Bethlehem when Jesus was several months old, and that it was to the home he was visiting to which the star led the magi and it's from there he was taken to Egypt. Whichever, after the death of Herod, Joseph was told to go back to NAZARETH, which he did. The point is simply that it was not likely that there were three kings who came to pay homage to Jesus and it was not to bethlehem on the night of the Savior's birth, no matter what the song writers say.

Myth number six and number seven are rather simple.

Was it an actual star that guided the Magi? Maybe or maybe not!  Some people believe the star was just a natural alignment of planets and others believe it was the forming of a new star. That would have certainly been a miracle which I have no problem with as this was a time of splendid miracles anyway.
But the timing and movement of the star dictates, to me at least, that something far more divine in nature than a natural alignment was transpiring.

It could have been a star of the kind we mean when speaking of stars, but it also could have been something more akin to the shekinah glory that accompanied the children of Israel in their wilderness wanderings. This could be the hint intended by Luke 2:9 where it is says the "glory of the Lord" was shining on the shepherds.

This would have meant the presence of God was being manifested during that time since the Shekinah or the "glory of the Lord" has always been associated with God's presence, No one can say with any certainty that it wasn't a star miraculously produced for the divine moment. But my choice is to think of it as that Shekinah fire [The Glory] that God travels in and may even be testifying to the Father being present at the birth of His Only Begotten Son. That's what a Father does.

Whatever the case may be, I ran out of time for my Sunday presentation last Sunday at this point and, frankly, it was just as well, since we could talk forever about these kinds of things. But for the same reasons I'll just leave it at that. at the present

Then, the seventh and final myth is that it's a sin to celebrate Christmas in any fashion.

Since "sin" is defined in scripture as "missing the mark," you would have to have either a condemnation OF celebrating Christmas stated in scripture, which would mean we should not, or a command TO celebrate it, which would mean we are to do just that. But when there is neither a condemnation nor a command present in the bible, each is free to live by his or her own conscience. Of course, there are times when other things come into play about whether there is freedom of decision about something, such as deferring for the sake of others, but none seems to be there as far as I can tell.

Since I have reason to believe the birth of Jesus was more likely to have been in September rather than in December, [That's a post for another time] and I believe it to be associated with the feast of the Tabernacles which was celebrated with the lighting of a candle during each of the seven days of the feast, Mary and I, through the years, would gather our kids around a seven-branched menorah, much like the one used in the ancient Temple, and would, six nights before Christmas, with all lights off, light one of the branches, read a prophecy, sing a carol, then put the light out. The next night two with another passage, song and the next night three...and so on.

Then, on Christmas morning we would light all seven branches, celebrating the full light of the world, read Luke 2, and while holding hands, we would sing HAPPY BIRTHDAY to Jesus. That's my kind of celebration. To then enjoy exchanging of gifts, trees, food, family time, are all possibilities, to be sure, but to make it truly a celebration of the birth of our Lord is essential, I would think.

I hope you and your family will enjoy the celebration of His birth, whatever the actual and factual circumstances that may or may not have surrounded that first Christmas morning, because the REAL celebration is all about the gift of His Son given on our behalf that first Christmas day.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL.

PB.

SEVEN MYTHS OF CHRISTMAS

It's Monday following the infamous Sunday. I mean the Sunday when I posited before a rather large group of senior adults that some of what we assume as Christmas facts may be more fiction than we realize. [My audience was quite complimentary by the way.]

 In reporting to my Face Book friends about what I intended to do, a request came that I write a blog giving the material presented on that Sunday. The words before you fulfill that request. For what it's worth. Remember, there are no clear conclusions about some of the things mentioned here, how many wise men there were for example, but the myths I'll be dealing with I've stated in the traditional statements given as fact, rather than assumptions, then I present my differing view.

With that, let's begin.

Myth number one___Jesus was born the night Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem.

The language of Luke 2 indicates that there is the possibility that Mary and Joseph had been in Bethlehem a little while before the actual birth of the Christ child. The phrase in verse 6 that says, "And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered...." do not necessarily intend to mean the very same night they arrived. According to Lenski, it was not so.  "This, [the day Jesus was born] was NOT the day of the arrival of Mary and Joseph." [Emphasis mine]]

The Message picks up on this when it records verse 6 this way, "While they were there, the time came for her to give birth. The language is too ambiguous to state with certainty that it was upon the arrival of the couple that the child was born.

But what about the fact they could find no place to stay?

That leads us to the second myth.

Myth number two___There was no room for them in the public Inn.

Notice that the text of Luke, or any other gospel writer for that matter, makes no mention of an "Innkeeper." His presence is assumed since is stated that they received information that the place was full. The assumption being there HAD TO BE an Inn-keeper. But it is the place itself that is really in question here.

The English versions of the scripture, think KJV,  chose an unfortunate English word to translate "Kataluma" [I'll only give the English spelling of the Greek words for simplicity.] which was the Greek word Luke uses here for "Inn.". It gives a completely wrong impression to anyone in the West. An "Inn" to us is a motel of sorts, albeit, a kind that would be found in that day. But that isn't what the word meant back then at all, and Luke knew it.

You'll find it to be the same word he used in Luke 22:11 where he told us of Jesus telling His disciples that when they got to the city, they were to ask the Goodman of the HOUSE, where the GUEST-CHAMBER [kataluma] was, so He and His disciples could observe the passover. There is the word "Kataluma." [Guest-chamber] and notice that it is located in a home.

The fact is Luke knew this word well while writing about the birth of Jesus since he was going to use it in reference to Jesus and the passover later in his book anyway. Furthermore, there was another Greek word that did mean INN [pandocheion] which Luke would use in chapter 10 of his book when he told of the "Good Samaritan" being taken to an INN, and even the word for an INN-KEEPER [pandochei] was used there as well.

Was Luke confused? I don't think so. The probable answer to this is that when Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem there had been no room for them in the Kataluma or in English, "GUEST-ROOM" of the home of a relative with whom they intended to stay.

I think to be more in line with the language of the text of scripture for us one to believe that the birth of Jesus more than likely went this way.

Joseph and Mary returned to Joseph's ancestral home called Bethlehem because of the census that had been required for the Roman Empire and this means other members of his lineage had to gather in Bethlehem as well. The normal procedure would be to go to a relative's house and find a place in their guest room. But with all the other family members gathering as well, they found it to be, as we say in Oklahoma, plumb full.

So Mary and Joseph were forced to stay below in the lower level of the house which was, by the way, the cooking and living quarters of the home-owner. It was also the place where any animals that were valuable or delicate were brought in at night. It was in that situation, Mary brought forth a child and placed him in the "Manger." [phatné__Feeding trough__Strong's Concordance]  because the guest-room was full and they were relegated to staying in the area where the animals were kept at night.

[Remember the Judges 11 incident where Jephthah promised to sacrifice the first thing to meet him coming out of his house, expecting, I'm sure, it would be one of the better animals that required keeping indoors for safety. Unfortunately, it was his daughter who came out first.]

If all this is correct, it is worth noting that Jesus STARTED His journey on this earth in a house where the guest-room was full and he was born below with the animals, and ENDED His life in a guest-room on the eve of His crucifixion eating a meal with His disciples.

And now we'll take on the third myth in this study.

Myth number three_____Jesus did not cry as an infant. The song "Away in a manger." shows this to be true.  ;)

OK! The baby Jesus did not cry. May I ask? Did they ever have to change His diaper? Did they ever have to wipe his nose? Exactly what's wrong with crying?

I'm thinking that the earlier church fathers, or whomever it is that creates church traditions, were a bit concerned with keeping the baby Jesus divine and so they had to remove some of the vestiges of His humanity to maintain that divinity. At least in their mind! They certainly had the cooperation of the song writers as some Christmas carols include the idea of Him never crying, Away In A Manger being one. The problem with this is two-fold.

First, it is clearly stated in a couple of places in scripture that Jesus DID CRY. One is in John 11:35 where the shortest verse in the bible is recorded and it simply says, "Jesus wept." There may be disagreement as to WHY He wept, at the loss of Lazarus, His friend, or at the unbelief of the two remaining sisters. or both, but He did, in fact, shed some tears.

Second, it also states in Luke 19:41 that Jesus "wept over" the city of Jerusalem and her inhabitants for refusing to accept Him for Who He really was and is even now.

But Hebrews 5:7-8 also refers to Him offering up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears and that it was through suffering He learned obedience.

I think it unwise to think Jesus incapable of shedding tears, even as an infant. His conception was miraculous, to be sure, but the rest of the gestation period inside His mother and His moment of birth proved to be quite human, with blood, sweat, and a few tears to boot, I would imagine. He was, after all, fully GOD and fully MAN. We don't have to lose one to preserve the other in this miraculous person born that night in Bethlehem.

Myths 4-7 will come in part Two of this study.

Before I go however, remember this. No one is saying, especially understand that I'm not, that it is wrong to celebrate with nativity scenes or that you might should throw them away, as one jokingly said on Sunday morning. My answer to them was, and still is, that mine are too expensive to do that.  :)

To sing Christmas carols as they are written or to enjoy the things we normally do at Christmas time are not wrong. Quite the contrary. Most of these things I'm addressing are not completely clear in the scriptures themselves, so all I'm doing is presenting some things from the text that might help us get a truer picture of the events as they unfolded.

So, I would think it's OK to celebrate His birthday any way you want. Just remember two things.

One is that the early Church did not seem to make much of His birth, in terms of celebration, but they sure did celebrate His death, burial and resurrection. But the Christ event really is all about the fact that He came, did what He did, as Who He was and is, all on our behalf. Who wouldn't want to celebrate HIM FOR ALL OF THAT!

MERRY CHRISTMAS in this year of our Lord, 2013.

Paul B.

IS FULL TIME MINISTRY A GREATER CALLING THAN ANY OTHER CALLING?

In Ephesians 4:1 Paul says this....

"Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called...." [the New American Standard Bible (1995)] The King James version uses the word "vocation" but it is better understood as "calling." It is a reference to the general calling of grace that the first three chapters have described. So all Christians have a "calling" and we're to walk accordingly.

Roman Catholic writer Michael Novak wrote a book on 'Business as a Calling' in which he presented four aspects of a "calling." [His idea was in the context of business remember.] He said a calling will have ...

1) An understanding that it is a personal and unique calling to you....

2) A requirement for the talents needed for the task and a love for the drudgery that may be involved in the task to which you're called....

3) The presence of an enjoyment for and renewed energies from the doing of the task that is your calling....

4) A period of discernment and testing for [learning all about] the task to which you're called.

Not bad.

I would think, in the Ephesians 4 context, our calling, which is to the same "Lord" Paul said he was a prisoner of in verse one and that "Lordship" calling is for EVERY true believer, might have the same characteristics about it...

1) It IS personal and unique to each of us...

2) We HAVE been gifted for our Life in Him...

3) There IS joy unspeakable in our life in Him and strength provided for the living of life...

4) We then spend the rest of our lives learning what life is all about by "hearing Him" as commanded of the Father. As I said, not bad!

I would also add what someone else has called a "fifth aspect" of a true calling and it is..

5) An orientation away from self so our goal would be the glory of God and the good of others in all things. That makes it even better.

It is obvious from all this that I believe we as Christians have accepted the universal vocation [calling] of following Christ and Novak's ideas can be seen as relevant to that task/life.

But... is there in life a calling to a more specific vocation for all of us through which we make a living, provide for our families and, generally, live out our days on earth?

In other words, are we "called" to a career? And if we are, how do we know what we are to do for a career or livelihood? Add to that the question... is the "calling" to "full-time ministry" [career] a GREATER calling than the calling to other careers?

It is this that concept that I'm addressing today.

Since I believe ALL of life is sacred and there is NO division in scripture between the sacred and the secular [See 1 Corinthians 3:21-23.] I think we are to view ANYTHING we choose to do in life as a "calling." A better way of saying it is we are to see anything we choose to do as an opportunity to "life-out our Lordship calling." Choose anything you wish, but see it as a commitment to express His life in you and understand that what you do choose is a gift from Him to you.

Someone may be saying "Wait a minute Brother Paul, it sounds like you're saying we can choose however we wish in matters of life instead of finding God's specific will in those matters." I am. The only WILL God has revealed to you and me specifically is that we are to live as what we are...'Sanctified people." [1 Thess. 4:3 the rest of the chapter shows what that looks like.]

When we are committed to Him as Lord we will reflect that in whatever we choose. Our life is not to be lived trying to find out what He wishes we would do in each decision but, rather, in celebrating who He is as our Lord and making ANY decision accordingly.

So, I say marry whomever you choose, go to whatever University you wish, get whatever degree you desire, and live doing wherever you long to live doing. But in EVERY CHOICE YOU MAKE, see it as that which allows you to be effective for God in this world and bring glory to Him and good for other people. Your vocation or marriage or career or whatever, will only allow you to establish God's order and virtue in your life and to assist other people to do the same. This is Christianity to me.

This isn't to say that there isn't an eternal and secret will that God is working out for us in His Divine Purposes. But it is to say that, by definition, that will is "secret" and we'll understand in all only in "eternity." Don't worry. You won't miss God in decisions. He really is in control. He's unique that way.


By the way, as to whether a "calling to full-time ministry" is more sacred than anyone else's, my answer is NO. It is different. It is unique to the one called. There are greater responsibilities for certain areas of life affected by that calling. But remember, all that is true of every christian's life, as well in their unique way of living that life in employment. It's ALL sacred and satisfying and spiritual when He is Lord.

So you obviously can see I believe every christian IS a full-time minister. Some are just placed as gifts to the Body as shepherds/pastors/elders/deacons, recognized by the body as gifts, but all Christians are gifts to and gifted for the Body of Christ in some fashion, [for ministry] and for the living of life however we live it. [Which is what ministry is.] "Whatsoever you do, do ALL to the glory of God."

By the way, if I'm out in left field with this, don't tell me. I'm having too much fun out here. ;)

Just kidding!


Paul B.

A CRAZY CONCEPT ABOUT CULTURE THAT'S CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION

I'm going to start off with a rather long sentence. Read it carefully, please.

I'm of the opinion that were Christians to be truly biblical in relational matters, especially in marriage and family life, it would upset the apple cart of our culture beyond measure and that's because the American culture DOES NOT equally respect the female gender, as evidenced by the inequality of pay between male and female employees when in the same positions, and, were true believers to magically begin to follow the bible and have true respect for women as equals with men, which present day Christianity doesn't do and is more like the American culture in this regard, it would be tantamount to the kind of turmoil Jesus caused when He brought about a radical change toward equality regardless of race, gender, or social background, to the life of His own religious and secular culture.

I told you it was long!

How transforming and disturbing Jesus was at the time of His first advent. Remember He lived in a hierarchical, racially biased, male-dominated culture and religion, whether pagan or Jewish. But, alas, it will take His second advent at the end of the ages for the American culture and culturally influenced Christianity to truly be transformed on that issue. That is unless one truly becomes a biblical Christian. [Meaning the biblical materials serve as a guide for life when properly understood.] Then it would be seen as a reality, albeit in a microcosm, in a marriage and family life where there is mutual respect, mutual value, mutual submission and love, all under Jesus as Lord. That sounds like the picture of a truly biblical local church as well, by the way.

Another thing, we must never forget that Jesus was identified as one who "ate with publicans [tax-collectors who were the dregs of society] and sinners." [Luke 15:1-2] May that same charge ever be laid at our feet as His followers and people of His Kingdom. Whatever one's definition of "dregs" of society [some would say religious people are] we are to recognize and embrace their value as a human being and be ready to express grace, mercy, and love to whomever fits your particular definition of that word "dregs."

I may hold to a different definition of "dregs" than do some. I don't mean to be cruel here, but I'm rapidly approaching a belief that the "real" dregs of society are, as in the day of Jesus as well, the religious people who think more of their belief system than they do of the mind boggling reality of God's revelation of Himself in His Son seen in His receiving of the "so-called" outcasts of His day. I'm not sure the same isn't happening today. That "They were first called Christians" event was in Antioch and was prompted because the people saw believers embracing people of every stripe some of whom were then broken by that love and the gospel that followed and came to know the love of God in Christ. "See how they love" was the testimony of that day for believers. That love is still the biblical standard for us I believe. it would transform this day as well.

Lest someone hear this as love with no doctrinal foundation or lest someone think this love will lower the scriptural standard for immoral behavior, let me say, I do not mean that at all. I DO mean that the same love, experienced in Christ and founded upon the truth of scripture WILL be shed abroad by the Holy Spirit to people who may be a bit unlovely. This is what surprises those in their theological cages they've built for themselves. In other words, it isn't any less important to love the elder brother of Luke 15 than it is to love the younger one. [The prodigal] My problem used to be not loving the younger guy of Luke 15. I learned better. Then I struggled loving the elder guy. But when God's love is REALLY shed abroad through me it will go to both the elder and younger bros. [The legalists and the immoral ones] just as the father did.

Finally, I'm afraid what I've said all says more about me than anyone else. I recognize I'm a work in progress and, as one of my favorite commenters Aussie John says, it comes with some "ego bruising" going on if real growth happens. It's happening and my ego is no longer in tact. Not that it has grounds to be intact and, after all, this is a "praise the lord" thing as you can see.

What I've attempted to describe here, I believe, is completely counter to culture. It's a different culture altogether and, frankly, it's not a religious thing at all. It's a Kingdom thing entirely.


Paul B.