It's the Truth Cause I Heard it on Fox

Everybody should not believe what they hear on any news outlet since "news" is no longer an unbiased and balanced reporting of facts... "News" is entertainment. What drives and directs news content is ad sales. It's simple. If there are two news programs, and one is careful, balanced and accurate, but the other is electrifying, scandalous and titillating, the second is going to attract the greater number of people and therefore the greater amount of advertising money. The second is going to survive and flourish whereas the first is going to fade into obscurity.

Next, think of the person you've heard in the past who says, "I'm ashamed of myself. As a Christian, I should have more interest in 'what's happening in the world', but I just don't follow the news. I haven't got the slightest idea of what's going on."

Is this a spiritual problem? Certainly. But the problem isn't that the person isn't guilty of not watching the news. The problem is believing that the news media is accurately portraying what's going on in the world.

The reality is that -- if you closely follow what the news media puts out -- you will not know what's going on in the world.

In the Bible, there's a wonderful statement about a tribe, the "men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what Israel should do..." This is like a trumpet call to the followers of Christ. We who are followers of the truth, have a passion to know the truth about the times in which we live. Today, we are the ones who must "understand the times in which we live and what the People of God should do".

So, we want to "know our times"... How do we accomplish this? Listen to the news media? If you do, you'll never know the truth of what is happening in "our times".

How do we "know our times"? Only by inclining our ear to the Voice of God.

Someone cries out, "But God hasn't said anything about the riots in Whatever-stan or the human rights violations in Wherever-odia! How will I know the truth about those riots or those violations without the news media?" And again it must be said, the news media is not putting out truth, but half-truths, quarter truths, eighth truths alongside of innuendo, rumor, insinuation and scandal. When a follower of Jesus Christ listens to a newscast, he or she can never confidently accept the so-called report as truth.

But when a follower of Jesus Christ listens to Him, he or she hears God's truthful evaluation of the times in which we live. Do you honestly believe that the word of the news media is more accurate than the Word from the Lord?

If we take these things to heart, what does it look like? Do we turn off the TV news and toss out our daily newspaper? Maybe, to some degree. But not entirely. Here's a picture: The news shows emaciated children in some third-world country, rib bones sticking out, scars and boils on their bodies and stomachs swollen in hunger. You mute the "news report" and incline your ear to God. You lay it out there and say, "Father -- this hurts to see these children... but I don't know the truth about this situation. Sure, I can donate money to Such-and-Such Relief Organization, but will my dollar ever reach the children I've just seen? What is the truth of my times and what I should do..."

And God says something totally unexpected. He says, "No -- don't give a donation to the group just shown on TV, but contact so-and-so and give $150 today." Or God says, No- your money is not needed, but your prayers will help defeat the enemy's strategies in that land of starving children." Or He says, "Call upon Heaven for Justice! Cry out shamelessly for Justice to be done in that land and in those children's' lives! Pray for the hold Satan has on the political power of that nation to be broken and My Life, Love and Power to be released like a River across that land!"

Those followers of Jesus who know not to trust the news media, who know not to be led by the nose by news, become a people who know their times and what they should do, because they get there direction straight from the Throne of God.

Do you say, "Let me call Pastor, and see if he can tell me what to do"? Do you say, "Let me see if Such-and-Such Ministry has put out a White Paper on this terrible problem telling me what to do?" No. To become like the "sons of Issachar", it is you who must daily approach God and say, "Help me, Father, to understand the Truth of my times and what I should do."

Our Heavenly Father has not given us full access to His Person and Presence only so that we can go to another source for Truth. We are the people who "understand our times" because we know our God. As it says in Daniel 11.32: "The people who know their God will display strength and take action." (NASB)

End of the World Scenarios?

We haven't put out anything on the KingdomScribes blog this last year because we've just been letting things develop in relationship to the KingdomScribes' vision. This last year of virtual silence has seen a great deal of growth in our lives and clarity from the Lord.

Having been hidden away "in the cleft of the Rock" for such a long time here in northern California, the Lord is moving Michele and me into a new field of "practical ministry". There are quite a few people near us -- about an hour away on the Pacific coast -- who are spiritually restless. They're ready to go into new places in God's "preparation of the Bride", but are unclear just what that looks like.

Which is O.K. We're unclear as well, but quite willing to move out of familiar church forms and find forms more suitable to the Move of God's Spirit today. In a sense, I personally feel like a part of me that's never yet been fulfilled is close to its fulfillment.

Just a few days ago I shared with Michele how all my life I'd loved sci-fi stories about the "end of the world". She looked at me suspiciously. Stories of the decimation of humankind due to a world-wide atomic bomb or a meteor crashing into the ocean or a Ebola virus killing 99% of the population hardly seemed very "christian" of me.

Agreeing with her (but still enamored of these stories) I asked the Lord why I have such twisted tastes in literature -- and He said it's because He created me this way. "It's Your fault?" I asked, and He told me it's the natural outgrowth of a character trait He designed in me -- He gave me a fondness for scenarios in which the entire infrastructure is destroyed, leaving people free to develop something new.

Like -- what?

Let's consider "infrastructure" first. "Infrastructure" is the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities needed for the continuation of a society or activity. Like buildings, roads, power plants, fuel, communications, etc. When the Ebola virus is released, for example, every one needed to drive buses, generate electricity, repair roads, restock groceries -- they're all gone. The infrastructure needed to keep society maintained is gone. Communities have shut down, streets are empty, cars are abandoned and nobody's "home" because society's "infrastructure" has been destroyed.

Instantly, I understood His point -- especially how it relates to the Kingdom.

In order to build the Church according to new patterns, a person has to be willing to release the old, religious infrastructure -- the rituals, the programs, the familiar, friendly, previously successful patterns of what "doing church" means. Understand me -- not destroy those patterns, but be willing to release whatever Jesus says is no longer part of the Church He's building.

There is in me a joyous expectation that in releasing the traditions of men, we can enter into the Living Church that Jesus Builds -- the Church which prevails over the gates of Hell itself.

It's vital to be clear on this: There is no need to tear down existing, religious structures. To "violently press into the Kingdom of God" does not require the "tearing down" of old line churches, denominations, etc. In fact, we're certain that any such focus is a distraction from receiving the New Wine of Jesus into New Wineskins. As we've said often, our focus is simple: we're going into new places in the Kingdom, places where Jesus leads and we follow. Basically, in respect to brethren who have no interest in spiritually traveling with us, we bless them and go our way.

In fact, our primary responsibility to older church forms and even the religious tradition of our Christian brothers and sisters is honor -- honor those who have gone before, and honor the function they still have in the Church of Jesus Christ. But our primary responsibility to God is to let Him hold the map, and walk into unknown places, guided by the safety of our hands in the Father's Hand.

The Lament of the Bride...

Hello, All!

We wanted to tell you about a free e-book we're making available. It's entitled, Many Are Sick and Some Have Died: The Little Book of Christian Harmony. It confronts the wholesale refusal by Christians everywhere to Love one another as Christ Loves us. Awhile back, an old woman from Sacramento traveled north into our mountains -- not knowing us, she came to our congregation, drawn by the Lord, and laying hands on this Little Book, prophesied, "This book will bring great lamentation to churches across this land!"

---

Lamentation? Is this a Good Thing, bringing Lamentation to many churches?

Let me describe this Coming Lament - it's the Lament of the Bride found in the Song of Songs, 6.2-8.

In these verses, the Bride longs for Her Beloved, but has fallen into a profound slumber. She has showered and removed Her undergarment to lie warmly in her bed -- but then She hears Her Lover at the door of Her bedchamber -- He tries to reach the latch to open the door and enter the room of His Beloved?but He cannot. But does the Bride rouse Herself from Her sleep, rush and unlatch the door? Not at all! She has fallen into a slumber and, though stirred, finds the thought of putting Her robe on overwhelming and getting her newly washed feet dirty on the floor distasteful... So She delays, finally arises only to discover Her Beloved has gone! Sickened for the Love that She's lost, She rushes out into the streets to find Him -- but all She finds is abuse at the hands of the city watchmen who beat Her viciously, bruising Her tender flesh and tearing away her veil to leave her wretched and dishonored.

All She has is sadness and lamentation?

The Song of Songs portrays to us the Great Love of Jesus Christ for His Bride, the Church -- His Love for us! But amidst romantic passages about the fragrance of God's Spirit sweeping through the Secret Garden of our Romance with the King, there comes this dark passage of Love Lost and the bloodying of the Bride? Why? Why does this dark night have to come into Our Heavenly Romance?

It comes because in Her sleep -- Her slothful and numbing sleep -- the Bride rejected Jesus' Love. She lay in bed, having laid aside Her robe of righteousness and yet remaining self-satisfied that at least her feet were clean...

In order to open the door, She had to don the Robe of His Righteousness and "dirty her feet" -- but instead, the Bride rejected His Love.

Jesus says, in John 15, that we are to "abide" in His Love, even as He abides in His Father's Love. Does this mean we are to somehow "keep" Him "loving us" and thus "abide" in His Love?

Not at all -- there's nothing that can separate us from the Love of God. But we can separate ourselves from the Love of Jesus. We can refuse to allow His Love to enter into the bedchamber of our spiritual lethargy.

What is this "refusal" to allow the Love of Jesus to enter into our bedchamber? Jesus tells us exactly what "receiving His Love" means. He says we are to "abide in His Love" (John 15.10) and that therefore we are "to love one another" (John 15. 12, 17)

To "abide" in Jesus' Love is to "love the brethren".

To "abide" in Jesus' Love is to "love the brethren"!

But the Visible Church does not "love the brethren". Instead, it is filled with schism, accusation, betrayal between christians, backstabbing, disdain and mockery of other brethren, religious pride and dishonor of others and arrogant schisms amongst God's children into congregations, denominations, theologies and litergies. The Children of God -- being existentially united and one in Christ are not manifesting that oneness (which is, in fact, the same Oneness of Jesus and His Father -- John 17).

Are the Watchmen in The Song a blessing to the city? Not at all. Where the spiritual "watchmen" of the Kingdom of God should be ministering to the Bride in Her search for Her Beloved, they instead attack Her? They attack the Body, arrogantly claiming their "wounding of the Bride" somehow helps Her become more "holy" or ensures that Her "doctrine" is more "correct". Where a minister in the Body urges schism in the Body instead of Oneness, where a pastor mocks the Christians and congregations in his area or feels he must "compete" against them, where "christians" condemn "christians" and stand in judgment against them -- here, the Bride, desperately sick for the unifying Love she's unwisely rejected, is mauled by malice, bruised by blame, destroyed by division and dishonored by dissection.

In the Song of Songs, the Bride numbly lays in a self-satisfied sleep, fantasizing of Her Beloved but in fact refusing entry to His Love.

Here's this Little Book's message in a nut-shell:

The Church, the Body of Christ, has rejected Jesus' Love...

...the very Love into which He calls us (as in Eph. 4.1-2.) Paul commands us to...

Live and act as is appropriate

to those who have received the Call

that you have received...

That with all humility and unselfishness, and with patience, that we

Bear with one another lovingly, and (in the uniting bond of peace)

Make every effort to maintain the unity given by the Spirit"?

---

Paul warned the Corinthians that because they had also kept the Door closed on the Love of Jesus Christ and the Oneness of His Body, many of them were sick, and weak, and some even had died. (1 Cor 11.30)

In the Song of Songs, the Bride weeps in deep Lament for Her Beloved, sickened at having turned away His Love? As the Bride of Christ begins to discern the Love she's groggily rejected and the Oneness She's dishonored, She Laments for the Love of Jesus even as She begins to make every effort to manifest His Love in the Oneness of all who call upon the Lord Jesus and are One with Him.

The Lament of the Bride, finally becomes the Song of All Songs.

And for this purpose, this Little Book has been written.

Download this e-book in pdf format for free here:

Download Many Are Sick and Some Have Died

Feel free to share Many Are Sick and Some Have Died with others as you sense the Spirit's leading. One pastor in London asked permission to print it out, photocopy it and share it with his regional ministerial association. He mailed me a copy when he did so.

Bless you all!

Emil & Shell

P.S. We're developing a KingdomScribes Bible Study forum. It's main focus will be to equip disciples of the Kingdom of Heaven in accurately examining current, revelatory teachings in the Body of Christ as well as interpreting a variety of Biblical passages. When we're ready to move the forum into action, we'll let you all know. es

For You iPoders Out There...

Just a short note on a recent feature implemented here at KingdomScribes... our teachings are now being made available via podcasts! The teachings available from Em&M Ministries are valuable for pressing into the New Things of God -- the invasion of His Kingdom into the kingdoms of this earth, the explosive power in our lives of joining the Word and the Spirit into one, the Pouring of New Wine into New Wineskins, and the Preparation of the Bride for Christ!

There are a couple of ways to access these teachings:

If you are an iPoder and have access the iTunes music store, look on the upper right
corner of the iTunes screen for a text box entitled, "Search Music
Store". Type in, "KingdomScribes" and it'll bring up "Bible Truths for KingdomScribes" with a tiny arrow after the title. Click that arrow and it'll bring up a complete list of current podcasts. Click the "Subscribe" button to be automatically kept up to date with new podcasts.

The original two podcasts include the seminal teaching for the Rightly Dividing the Word Tutuorial called "Surfing the Prophetic Voice of God". The other, "When Your Personal Prophecies are Tested", is a teaching designed to help you guard the prophetic Words of the Lord you've received from being derailed or stolen away before their fulfillment in your life. The rest of the podcasts deal with other issues important to any "scribe" today who is being "discipled by the Kingdom of Heaven"!

Now, if you DON'T use an iPod you can still listen to the podcasts, as long as you have a high speed connection (such as DSL, cable, etc.)

Click here for access and scroll down to the bottom of the page:

Enjoy!

Emil & Michele Swift

The Well-Known Editor Has Gone Too Far This Time...

The internet is a wonderful resource -- but dangerous at the same time. On the Web, everybody has a voice, and many times the voices we hear are skewed or outright deceptive. It's our responsibility to judge what information we pull from the Web -- never accept anything at face value.

Recently, someone sent to me a copy of an OpEd piece by Charisma editor, J. Lee Grady. This piece comes at an opportune time -- I was just preparing a blog on Barna's book, Revolution, and felt astonished when Grady's hatchet-job showed up.

I read what Grady wrote and wondered (as I often do) how people who misrepresent the thoughts of others ever get into positions of influence. It reminds me of a quip by Karl Barth (author of the massive Church Dogmatics) who, when asked to respond to a reviewer's criticisms, responded, "I'd feel much different about it if they'd actually read what I write before they comment on it." To my understanding, in Grady's bash, he says nothing that shows me he first, respectfully grasped what Barna was saying before wading in to "warn" Charisma's subscribers of Barna's "Serious Proposal".

(For the rest of this blog, I'll put quotes from Grady's OpEd article into inset paragraphs with this font.)

"GEORGE BARNA'S DANGEROUS PROPOSAL:
The well-known Christian researcher has gone too far this time: He's advocating the demise of the local church."

I've got the book right here. Grady claims some things about Barna's book that are either untrue or "spun". I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I'll pull a few quotes out of the book to show that Grady has not fairly represented Barna's message.

What is it, according to the polls he'd been taking for the last, several years, that Barna is saying "revolutionary Christians" are rejecting? On p.13 Barna says that these spiritual revolutionaries,

"have no use for churches that play religious games, whether those games are worship services that drone on without the presence of God or ministry programs that bear no spiritual fruit. Revolutionaries eschew ministries that compromise or soft sell our sinful natures [in order] to expand organizational turf. They refuse to follow people in ministry leadership positions who cast a personal vision rather than God's. Who seek popularity rather than the proclamation of truth in their public statements, or who are more concerned about their own legacy than that of Jesus Christ."

Any problem with that perspective? You might look at it and say, "But when he says this, maybe he means something else..." and I say, read what he actually says and tell me you don't feel the same passion for spiritual reality that Barna affirms.

On p. 14 Barna continues:

"Many Revolutionaries have been active in good churches that have biblical preaching, people coming to Christ and being baptized, a full roster of interesting classes and programs, and a congregation packed with nice people. There's nothing overtly wrong with anything taking place at such churches. But Revolutionaries innately realize that it is just not enough to go with the flow...They are seeking a faith experience that is more robust and awe inspiring, a spiritual journey that prioritizes transformation at every turn, something worthy of the Creator whom their faith reflects. They are seeking the spark provided by a commitment to a true revolution in thinking, behavior and experience, where settling for what is merely good and above average is defeat. Revolutionaries zealously pursue an intimate relationship with God, which Jesus Christ promised we could have through Him."

This is certainly what I've been telling our people! We're not called to "go along just to get along" but to be world-changers!

"Pollster George Barna has provided a valuable service to leaders in business, politics and ministry by studying data and identifying trends. As a social analyst, he warned us in his 1990 book, The Frog in the Kettle, that evangelical values have not been embraced inside our churches.

"But Barna has crossed a line with his new book, Revolution (Barna Books, a division of Tyndale House, $17.99). The tempered sociologist has now become something of a mad scientist. By cooking the numbers, reinterpreting the data and injecting his own biases into this odd experiment, he has created a Frankenstein that is now on the loose.

"We should all be concerned about this monster.

"Barna's theory is that large numbers of American Christians are disillusioned with the church and have quit the Sunday morning routine. He applauds this trend, and has labeled these church dropouts "revolutionaries" who--in his opinion--have more spiritual creativity and passion than stick-in-the-mud traditionalists.

"He also believes that those who have left the mainstream church scene will overhaul modern Christianity, describing their mission as 'a daring redefinition of the church as we know it.'"

Barna claims that people all over America are leaving "mainstream churches" which have rejected the call to a radical commitment to Jesus Christ. But they're leaving "mainstream churches" in order to press into a radical, "Kingdom" lifestyle. He's saying that people all over are hungry for Kingdom reality.

This is a problem?

Let me toss this in here: throughout the book, Barna treats the local congregation as a viable and continuing expression of the Church. He doesn't predict its demise -- he IS predicting the demise of the "mainstream" church which has abdicated its commitment to living a revolutionary lifestyle in this world. And what is Bill Johnson [When Heaven Invades, Earth] advocating? Bill's leading everyone who'll lend him an ear to abdicate traditional, shallow "christian" lives in order to usher in the Kingdom of Heaven wherever we put our feet. This is the "revolution" that Barna is reporting on. What he's finding in his polls, though, isn't the mature, spiritual vision that Bill's proclaiming, but Barna's saying that people all over America are walking out of "mainstream churches" in search of something worth living for and dying for.

Is this a shocking idea -- that "mainstream churches" all over America are failing to lead people into the Kingdom invasion?

Consider Barna's list of the "Revolutionary's" seven passions (pp. 22ff) -- The Revolutionary...

- is passionate about intimacy in worship:
- is passionate about inviting those who do not yet know God into the same miraculous and intimate relationship we have:
- is passionate about deliberately, intentionally growing spiritually (never satisfied with what they know of God but wanting more...):
- is passionate to serve others, to put the interests of others above their own;
- is passionate to use all their personal resources as godly stewards to invest in the
Kingdom of God;
- is passionate to form knitted relationships, providing "not only encouragement but also loving accountability for spiritual integrity."
- is passionate to model Spirit-led lifestyles in their own homes, making even their homes (or especially their homes) a sanctuary for God.

Most ministers we connect with share these "passions" along with Barna. We might put other "passions" on our own lists -- but these seven are the ones Barna says he's culled from thousands of polls. Barna is saying that people all over the nation are leaving "mainstream mediocrity" in a passionate search for spiritual reality not offered in traditional "wineskin" churches.

Personally -- I agree.

"He offers a gloomy assessment of the future of the American religious scene, claiming that by the year 2025 (1) the number of churches in this country will dramatically decline; (2) church attendance will drop while at the same time the 'revolutionaries' will be devoting their time to other 'spiritual events'; (3) donations to churches will drop; and (4) fewer clergy will receive a livable salary while denominations are forced to make huge cutbacks.

"Barna seems to welcome this scenario, and he makes disaffected Christians out to be the heroes in his bizarre sociological model. They are tired of tithing, tired of boring sermons, tired of the religious routine. So, in their revolutionary zeal--with Barna as their mentor--they buck the system and start meeting together in glorious spontaneity at coffee bars and homes.

"Says Barna: 'The Bible neither describes nor promotes the local church as we know it today.'"

Let's remove the "spin": Barna is saying that what people typically consider "church" isn't at all what Acts shows that the church really is. And I'm sure you've preached that sermon before!

"If you still go to church, Barna makes you to feel like a weirdo..."

Listen -- I've read Barna's book, and nothing he said made me feel like a "weirdo" .

"...We are behind the times. According to Barna's research, the really relevant Christians who care about Jesus and love people will say adios to their pastors and write Ichabod on the doors of ecclesiastical buildings."

Not only does Barna not say this, nowhere in the book does he demonstrate the attitude that Grady accuses him of having.

"He envisions a 'spiritual awakening' in which people are drawn away from the church, not drawn toward it."

Specifically -- drawn away from the "old wineskins" of traditional, religious organizations which have substituted human agendas for God's agenda -- into a spiritual awakening in which every formal expression of the true Church will be greater and broader than what the traditional church form allows.

And Barna isn't advocating getting rid of local churches (not at all!) He's not saying that people must participate in "para-church" ministries (though he says that for many people, para-church ministries, short-term missions, etc. are the deepest and most viable expressions of a committed and revolutionary lifestyle.) Barna is reporting that traditional church forms are failing to provide the revolutionary lifestyle into which Jesus is calling His followers.

??? This is a problem???

"Barna even provides a creed we can recite at the end of the book, which includes this statement: 'I am not called to attend or join a church. I am called to be the Church.'"

Barna says, "I am not called to attend or join a church. I am called to be the Church." In the beginning of the book, Barna makes a very, clear point about "church" and "Church". One is small "c" and the other is big "C". He uses "church" to refer to "the congregation-based faith experience, which involves a formal structure, a hierarchy of leadership, and a specific group of believers. The term Church, on the other hand, refers to all believers in Jesus Christ, comprising the population of heaven-bound individuals who are connected by their faith in Jesus Christ regardless of their local church connections or involvement." (p.x)

In the context of Barna's book as a whole, his statement that we aren't called to "attend" a "church" but to "be the Church" is simply drawing the distinction between what is typically a human organization vs. a spiritual identity; we go to a church but we are the Church. He's not putting down local congregations -- he's only emphasizing that when the old wineskin is empty, spiritually serious people go looking for Reality.

Furthermore, Barna says, (p.38), "The Revolution is not about eliminating, dismissing, or disparaging the local church. It is about building relationships, commitment, process, and tools that enable us to be the God-lovers we were intended to be from the beginning of creation...[The Revolution] is not about church. It's about the Church -- that is, the people who actively participate in the intentional advancement of God's Kingdom in partnership with the Holy Spirit and other believers."

In the chapter entitled, "A New Way of Doing Church", (pp.61ff), Barna says, "For some Revolutionaries, their congregational experience is the linchpin of their faith journey. For many others, a local church plays a minor role in their journey...Yet a majority of Revolutionaries are involved in some form of ?church'."

"In case you are wondering how Barna handles Hebrews 10:25 ('Let us not neglect our meeting together'), he conveniently dismisses this apostolic directive by saying that such gatherings during the first century were spontaneous and had no resemblance to modern worship services."

I agree with Grady's comment about this particular Scripture. In fact, after reading the book, I picked this particular part out and told Michele that Barna's ecclesiology lacks integrity on this issue -- in one place in the book he's calling for committed local relationships for encouragement and accountability, and in another he's dissing the regular assembly of Believers as Heb 10 requires.

But consider this: have you ever agreed completely with someone preaching or proclaiming revolutionary teachings? Barna's attempting to help blast Christians out of a complacent rejection of the coming Kingdom of God based on defending traditions of men. So he gets a little off balance at some points? That's fine. When we hear or read anyone, it's up to us to "judge the word".

And the gist of Barna says is great. And what isn't great is easily balanced.

"Says Barna: 'Such interactions [as described in Hebrews 10:25] could be in a worship service or at Starbucks; it might be satisfied through a Sunday school class or at a dinner in a fellow believer's home.' In other words, church is up for grabs. Define it how you wish, as long as you don't define it the traditional way."

Actually, if you look at Heb 10, there's nothing in it that says the "assembly" is from 10 AM to 12 noon, composed of opening hymns, announcements, worship and a sermon. There's nothing in Heb 10 that says the "assembly" can't be at Starbucks or down at the park or over at the Wagner's house. Barna isn't dissing "the traditional ways" -- he's just saying don't limit it to only traditional formats.

??? Problem with that???

"Barna makes a few solid points, particularly when he emphasizes the need for all Christians--not just clergy--to actively engage in ministry. And his concerns about dry, anemic formalism in some churches are appropriate.
But what Barna wants to do is reinvent the church without its biblical structure and New Testament order--and without the necessary people who are anointed and appointed by God to lead it. To follow this defective thesis to its logical conclusion..."

When an apologist (like Grady) says, "To follow this to its logical conclusion..." he's really saying, "If we exaggerate Barna's ideas and take them to extremes that Barna has not taken them..." Grady's speculations here are absolutely not supportable by any of Barna's words.

"...would require us to fire all pastors, close all seminaries and Bible colleges, padlock our sanctuaries and send everybody home to be discipled by somebody on the Internet or at a "spontaneous" worship concert. (After all, who needs buildings? Megachurches are so '90s.)

"Barna is also surprisingly absorbed with American culture and seems out of touch with global spiritual trends. As a result his book has relatively no application in developing nations where churches today are growing faster than ever. I can't imagine telling an Indian, Nigerian or Chinese church planter these principles. The vibrant new churches in those countries, in fact, are much better biblical models of what God wants to do in the United States than anything Barna has suggested here."

Barna is NOT trying to lay out a model for a new church -- he IS saying that the traditional churches in America are going through a radical transformation and the polls indicate it's happening and it's happening NOW. His point isn't, "Let me tell you how to DO church..." His point is, the Revolution's happening, the polls show it's a real transition in how huge numbers of people "do church" -- and "the more you can anticipate some of the transitions resulting from these trends, the greater will be your ability to help shape the world in ways that are likely to honor God and advance your spiritual maturity." (p.48)

"The message of Revolution is not for Christians in the Third World, and it is not for us. With all respect to Barna, who has helped us in the past with his facts and observations, this flawed proposal needs to be recalled before it causes some serious damage."

Final comment: Many of Grady's remarks are couched in a mocking tone. "Mad scientist...cooking the numbers...he's created a Frankenstein...now on the loose...we should be concerned about this monster...etc." This cynical tone is a rhetorical tool that tries to move with innuendo and insinuation instead of wisdom and revelation.

Emil

A Trail of Tears... But Joy Comes in the Morning!

CLF Many people wonder about the congregation we pastor. Here's a short summary of who we are and what motivates us to press on!

I've pastored a congregation in a small, mountain community for 23+ years, starting back in 1982. Our community has about 1,700 people, and we've pastored longer than any of the other, local pastors.

We have probably the smallest of the small churches in our region. And, IMHO, we have the best congregation.

First, let me explain the concept of topos as applied to local congregations. Then, we'll talk about the topos of our local congregation, CLF.

In Rev. 2 we read the following, and especially note the emboldened words:

1 "To the messenger of the church in Ephesus, write: The one who holds the seven stars in his right hand, the one who walks among the seven gold lamp stands, says:
2 I know what you have done--how hard you have worked and how you have endured. I also know that you cannot tolerate wicked people. You have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not apostles. You have discovered that they are liars.
3 You have endured, suffered trouble because of my name, and have not grown weary.
4 However, I have this against you: The love you had at first is gone.
5 Remember how far you have fallen. Return to me and change the way you think and act, and do what you did at first. I will come to you and take your lamp stand from its place if you don?t change.
6 But you have this in your favor--you hate what the Nicolaitans are doing. I also hate what they?re doing.
7 "Let the person who has ears listen to what the Spirit says to the churches. I will give the privilege of eating from the tree of life, which stands in the paradise of God, to everyone who wins the victory. (GWV)

The word "place" ("take your lamp stand from its place") in verse 5 is the Greek word topos. In Strong's, topos is defined, "the condition or station held by one in any company or assembly; opportunity, power, occasion for acting."

These terms, "opportunity, power, occasion for acting" are really important. Other sources relate places where topos is used in a military sense as a "strategic position". In other words, you might use topos to describe the strategic placement of soldiers on a battlefield, such as fighting from a mountain top instead of from an exposed place in a valley. The position which is strategically best would be called topos.

It's also used in Eph 4.27, "Neither give place to the devil." Understanding what topos means makes this warning much more powerful. We could paraphrase verse 27 as, "Don't give the devil a strategic position in your life from which to attack you." A position of "power".

Now -- back to Rev 2.5:

"I will come to you and take your lamp stand from its place if you don?t change."

Here's a warning to the church at Ephesus -- "Repent, or I'll remove your Lampstand from its topos"...its place of strategic opportunity.

The primary interpretation of this verse deals with the repentance of the church. But a valid application can be drawn from the idea represented here that a local church has been given a topos, a position of strategic opportunity.

In fact, if you look in any city or region at the variety of godly churches scattered about, it's not at all hard to appreciate the existence and ministry of every one. Few churches (and every cult) believe that they and they alone are the only true church in an area. Most Christians can agree that in fact, every church or congregation in particular is good at some aspect of ministry in a community. One church might be very good at ministering to the public welfare through benevolence. Surely this is a part of the Good News of Jesus Christ (unless you think giving a cup of cold water is somehow NOT part of Jesus' concern...re: Mt 25.35!)

Another church might be very evangelistic, winning the lost. Another might minister to those whose taste in worship is traditional (hymns, 20 minute sermons, etc.) and yet another raises the roof in youth-oriented ministry that blows right past 12 noon with no one even noticing.

The point is, unless a congregation has so blown it (like Ephesus) that God's pulled its candle out, then each church has a topos, a strategic position, given to it by God that no other church in an area has.

Specifically, CLF (Christian Life Fellowship, our congregation) has a calling that God has given to us which none other church in our region shares. God is raising up in our congregation a people and a ministry, an identity and a destiny, that only this congregation has. We have a topos, a position of strategic opportunity.

And that topos, that strategic opportunity, is to be "early morning people, in the dawn of a new Day".

God is on the Move. He's the Cloud by Day and the Fire by Night. He's moving out of the old traditions of men, the old wineskins, and going into places that none of us know. We are a people who are content to leave old and familiar places to be led blindly into new places we cannot yet see. As in Isa 42.16, despite our "blindness", He'll bring us by a way that we don't know; He'll lead us in paths we've never known: He'll make darkness light before us and make crooked things straight. He'll do these things for us, and never forsake us.

A note on church history is in order here. Not "ancient" church history, but a little history of our own congregation -- CLF. Back in January of 1990, God spoke through some of our people (we had people in those days!) He warned that though there had been great pruning and purging in the Church as a whole and that in our church, specifically, His purging wasn't over yet. By '95, we'd lost half our people and the Lord began speaking through me that our church was going to "die". By 2000, we had only a fraction of our congregation left, and by 2003 we had no one from the original congregation except one woman.

God dismantled the original CLF in order to build a new church -- this one. We, so to speak, are on the ground floor of something not seen before in this world. God would not have taken us through the excruciating process of ending the old church form, if what He wants to do henceforth could have been done in the "old wineskin". It's parallel to a thought by the Apostle Paul in Galatians -- if salvation could have come in any way other than the death of Jesus, then His death would be unnecessary. Just so -- if the raising up of a new church here in Willow Creek could have come in any way other than the death of the old, then all the suffering we experienced would have been unnecessary.

But God won't and He can't pour New Wine into old wineskins. It will not, it cannot happen.

Back in 1990, one of the women had a vision. She saw herself in this vision holding some beautiful piece of art in her hands -- like needlepoint on tapestry, but fantastically complex and very, very beautiful. She'd put hundreds of hours into crafting this piece of fabric. Suddenly, she realized that Jesus stood next to her. Holding up this precious work of time and love, she asked if He'd like to have it and He did. He took it from her hands and instantly, fiercely, threw it into a roaring fire in which it burned in a burst of flame. Shocked, she asked why He'd destroyed it, and He said, "That tapestry represented your Christian life. It showed how you went to church, how you prayed, how you loved your husband and family, how you cared for others, how you worshipped and how you did everything as a Christian. But your life is not supposed to be a product of your religious determination. I don't care so much what you can do for Me, but what I can do through you, if you let Me."

That woman, by the way, wasn't able to let go of her beautiful Christian way of life. She left us as well as almost all the others. God stripped away from CLF all its ways of "doing church". For over a decade, God stripped every aspect of "business as usual" away from this congregation -- and everyone who refused to let go of one precious "tradition" after another, found Him sweeping them out as well.

Another image helps explain the process. Again, in 1990, I said, "It's like there's a Greyhound bus, and God's the driver. It's waiting at the bus stop, He's gunned it a time or two and called out, 'Get on board!' to everyone standing outside. A few people have gotten on board, but many are still considering it outside. But the doors slam shut, the bus pulls out away from the curb and accelerates down the road into new places. If you want to go with Him into new places, leave the old behind and get on board."

One of the key characteristics of our ministry is that God is shaping us in such a way that we can relate to other churches without perpetuating traditional church forms. We aren't in an antagonistic relationship to the churches in our community -- we value each church's topos. But God isn't pouring the New Wine of His Spirit into the old church forms. He's creating a "new wineskin". And though we don't know yet what that really looks like, we know He's shaping us into a "new Thing. And furthermore, we know that as CLF becomes something not seen before, it's going to bring some confusion and even likely some reproach from those keeping to traditional church form. We aren't preaching a different Gospel; we're not proclaiming a different Christ -- but as a congregation we're on the way to becoming something that eventually people may no longer even recognize as "church" at all.

As with Abraham and all spiritual pilgrims throughout all time -- we know that here, we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come!

Emil & Michele Swift

Is it OK to Use "Church" and "Revolution" in the Same Sentence?

BRIEF UPDATE: We've been very tied up recently...Our most recent KingdomScribes Newsletter explained all (and if you didn't get it, click here to read it.)

Anyway -- we're off to visit the Apostolik Kirk churches in Denmark and a conference in Norway. Pray for us!

Meanwhile, on to our most recent blog!

In the '60s, various church people cried out, "God is dead!" People meant that "church" had become utterly meaningless to a normal person's daily life -- just as if "God" had "died". Lot of people still feel that way today.

In a way, this is kind of funny.

In the Bible, there's an Old Testament story about a troublesome prophet named "Elijah". He bucked the religious system of his day. The true ruler in Israel then was Queen Jezebel, and she worshipped Ba'el, a local fertility god.

Elijah challenged the prophets of Ba'el (450 of them) to a contest on top of a nearby mountain, Mt. Carmel. Sort of a "mano a mano" thing -- with one against hundreds.

Here's the contest: Each team had to build an altar and place wood and a sacrificial animal on top, offering it to their god. The winner would be the team whose god accepted the sacrifice by lighting the sacrifice on fire.

That's it. No cigarette lighters, no matches. No help at all -- just let their god of choice demonstrate his or her reality by setting the sacrifice on fire.

So the prophets of Ba'el went first. They built the altar, laid the wood, placed the animal sacrifice -- then began to dance and cry out for hours. Then they threw in a little of their own blood sacrifice as in their religious frenzy, they took knives and lancets, sliced their own bodies and let their blood flow freely as they danced in their trance.

Elijah, off to one side, wasn't very nice. He kept yelling things. He kept yelling things like, "Yell louder! Maybe your god's busy talking to someone! Maybe he's going to the bathroom! Maybe He's on vacation or taking a nap!"

(Don't believe me? Look it up... 1 Kings 18.27!)

Ba'el's prophets never quit until the time of the evening sacrifice. It's not as if Elijah didn't give them plenty of opportunity. Yet their god never lighted their sacrifice.

Then Elijah built his altar. Piling 12 stones together loosely, he laid the wood on top, slaughtered a steer for the sacrifice...

Then he went one further than the prophets of Ba'el. He dug a trench around the altar, calling for people from the crowd to pour four barrels of water all over the altar, soaking the wood, the sacrifice and running into the trench around the altar.

Then he told them to pour another four barrels of water on the altar, and then a third round of water. The altar was thoroughly soaked with water.

Then Elijah the prophet came near, and said, "Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that You are the only God in Israel, and that I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things because You told me to. Hear me, Oh Lord, hear me, so that this people will know that You are the Lord God, and that because of this sign, You have won back their hearts."

Verse 38 says, "Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the burnt sacrifice and the wood, and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water in the trench. And when all the people saw, they fell on their faces. And they said, 'Jehovah, He is the God! Jehovah, He is the God!'" And they then slaughtered all of Ba'el's prophets!

Let's make the connection now, between the first paragraph of this article and this Old Testament story.

Michele and I, we pastor a congregation locally. I do most of the teaching. My "handbook" for teaching is the Bible. If the Bible "says it", I say it too.

But that doesn't mean I have to like it. I preach what the Book says, not what makes me comfortable.

And the Book says that Jesus said that wherever any Believer of Jesus Christ "walks", "miraculous signs will accompany them (Mark 16.16): "They will use the power and authority of My Name to force demons out of people. They will speak 'languages' that are of a new kind and unprecedented...They will place their hands on the sick and cure them."

Paul, the Apostle, reproved the Believers at Corinth once. He said (in 1Cor 4.20): "The Kingdom of God is not just words, but power ."

Can I admit something to you? I'd be scared stiff if a modern "Elijah" walked up to me and said, "Is your god dead? You call on the name of your god, and I'll call on the name of my God -- and we'll see whose 'god' is real! That one, the One Who sends the fire -- He is God."

I'd be afraid to face "Elijah's" mockery as he says to me, "Can your god heal the sick? Raise the dead? Break demonic bondages? Maybe your god has gone to the bathroom or is still asleep!"

But, for Heaven's sake, why do I admit that there's something wrong with the "religion" I preach?

Number 1: I want to stir up a "holy dissatisfaction" with anything less than a church which is turning the world upside down through demonstrations of power and love.

Number 2: I'm not willing to play religion anymore. When we've prayed for people's healings, there have been very, very few miracles. Yet, according to the Bible, I can say that that's not what we should expect.

Besides, no one who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ now is going to believe by more religious prattle. But when the God of Elijah's "fire" heals the sick, frees the demonically oppressed and displays His true Power in the lives of people in this community and others, then everyone -- Believers or not -- will know that Heaven has sent the Eternal Human Being, Jesus Christ, into the world to bring us Life, and Life more abundantly.

Emil & Michele Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

P.S. By the way -- if I don't think I have the "truth, the whole truth"...why do I keep the doors of our "church" open?

It's simple: When someone says casually to me, "Oh, where's your church? I think I'll drop in some Sunday morning," I usually say, "You're more than welcome -- but when you come in, don't expect to find yourself 'in church'. We're not so much a "church" anymore as we are a Rallying Point for God's Coming Revolution." es

Breaking the Windows in God's House?

Breaking Out God's Windows



There's an old, Hasidic saying, "If God lived on earth, people would break out all His windows."

For the Jews, generations of "having their windows broken out" forced them to consider if they were the ones at fault. In preparing for the Jewish Holocaust in Germany, people caught up in a Nazi fervor swept through towns and cities one night in 1938, breaking the windows of all the houses and businesses belonging to Jews -- called "Krystalnacht", it's the "night" the "glass" was broken. Ultimately, Jews decided they were not at fault; even if it were God Himself moving into a Gentile community, His windows would be broken too.

Such a rejection -- of the Jews or of God Himself -- is terrible. Key to the awful nature of this broad scale rejection is that it's undeserved. Throughout many lands and cultures, the Jews have been chosen (demonically) as the "scapegoat" for the troubles afflicting whatever lands in which they lived.

In Hebrews, those of us who are following Jesus are warned that we also will be rejected. The reproach that has come on Jesus, will come on us.

Two passages in Hebrews force us to consider this "reproach" -- one, by Moses' example; two, by Jesus' example.

Heb 11.26: Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward.

Heb 13.10-14: ... Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

These verses are clear -- as followers of Jesus Christ, we indeed must "bear His reproach".

But what in the world does that mean?

Let's be honest. If we don't know what "reproach" He bore that we're supposed to bear, than we can no more agree to do it then we can agree to "outgrabe" with the "momsey raths".

Does "bearing His reproach" mean we're to "not be ashamed" to go street witnessing, or "not be afraid" that if we say we're a Christian at school we'll get "persecuted"?

No. Insufficient response! "Bearing the reproach of Christ" has a very clear and specific meaning. To find the correct interpretation of any verse, we have to start with the passage itself.

First -- Moses' example:

Heb 11.24-26: "Having become great, Moses by faith refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, having chosen rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than for a time to have enjoyment of sin; having counted the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward."

Think about this -- how could Moses bear "the reproach of Christ" when Moses lived over a millennia before Jesus Christ was even born?

Always remember that even though Jesus was born about 2,000 years ago, He was the Incarnation of the "already existing", "eternally existing" Second Person of the Godhead -- the Son of God. As such, He is God and has existed eternally with God and as God. (Consider, John 1.1: "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God...")

When we speak of "Jesus" in the Old Testament (before He was born in Bethlehem), we're actually a bit inaccurate... "Jesus" is the name Joseph gave to the Incarnate God Who cried and slept in the manger. Before that, "Jesus" didn't exist, but the Second Person of the Godhead known as the Son of God did exist.

And throughout the Old Testament, He Who would become "Jesus" manifested the Godhead frequently. For example, Paul says in 1 Cor. 10.1-4 that it was "Christ" who "escorted" the Hebrews during their Wilderness travels.

1Cor 10
1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The picture that develops here is not that the writer of Hebrews sort-of "tossed in" Jesus' name in the middle of talking about Moses... No, Hebrews makes it clear that the revelation given to Moses came from the "pre-Incarnate" Christ... later "en-fleshed" as the "Word became flesh". So when Moses rejected the power and opportunity of his being "Prince of Egypt", he instead cast his lot not so much with the people of God but with the God of the people of God!

And having "chosen" to follow the pre-incarnate Christ instead of staying with the power and authority of Pharaoh's House and Egypt's gods, Moses forsook them all for Christ... and ultimately fled from Egypt in shame and reproach. But the "reproach" Moses suffered from Pharaoh's House and even from his own people, came upon him because he'd chosen to "side" with the revelation that came by "Christ". The "reproach he "bore" was (in fact) the "reproach" of following Christ.

Heb 11.24-26: "Having become great, Moses by faith refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, having chosen rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than for a time to have enjoyment of sin; having counted the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward."

To better understand how this "reproach of Christ" affects us, let's go on to Heb. 13, to the other passage which mentions it:

Heb 13.12-13: "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered outside the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him outside the camp, bearing his reproach..."

So, what is "the reproach of Christ"?

Some commentators -- ignoring the context -- say simply that the Jews treated Jesus with contempt and shame, and that was His "reproach". Somewhat on these lines is Robertson's treatment:

The reproach of Christ...Jesus [was] the Messiah who had his own shame to bear (12:2; 13:12|). There is today as then (Heb 13:13|) a special reproach in being a follower of Jesus Christ. Moses took this [contemptuous speech] as "greater riches" than "the treasures of Egypt"

Robertson thinks the "reproach of Christ" are people speaking in a defamatory or contemptuous manner to Jesus. And if that's what it means, then when Moses "counted the reproach of Christ greater riches...", his "reproach" was that his family and friends were simply "speaking in a defamatory or contemptuous manner" to Moses. Which is very far from the truth.

But the "reproach of Christ" is much more.

Let's look again at a bit more of the passage's context. Here's Heb 13, verses 9-14 (comments interspersed):

9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them.

A line is drawn in verse 9 between followers of Jesus Christ and the Jews of the Old Covenant. These Jews were "legalizers" who "worshipped God" through the (pseudo) compliance with the Law -- represented here by a reference to Old Testament dietary regulations. The followers of Jesus Christ (by contrast) are not made holy by obeying the Law but by the grace of Jesus Christ.

10 We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.

Another line is drawn between followers of Jesus Christ and keepers of the Old Covenant. The Jewish legalizers have an altar from which they can eat -- it's the altar in Herod's Temple. But followers of Jesus Christ have an "altar" from which Jewish legalizers have "no right to eat" -- it's the "altar" of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross.

And these two "altars" aren't in the same place -- no, not at all. Here's why...

11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp.

The sacrifice that Jesus made -- the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world -- was represented by the once-a-year sin offering the High Priest made. The animal would be sacrificed and the blood sprinkled on the Mercy Seat -- but instead of dividing the carcass up between priests and the people as most other sacrifices, the carcass of this sin offering for the entire nation had to be taken from the Temple to outside the city gates and burned. Outside the gates ("outside the camp") was the city dump. In it burned fires that never went out, consuming all the trash of the city. And this is where they took the carcass of the sin offering.

And this is where they took Jesus and crucified Him -- "outside the camp"!

12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.

You see here one more line of distinction is drawn between Jesus' followers and Jewish legalizers. Think about it...the Jews of the Old Covenant had their altar in Herod's Temple. You'd think that Jesus (the Perfect Lamb of God) would somehow have fulfilled Old Testament symbolism and been "sacrificed" in the Temple, on the real altar.

But you see -- the altar in Herod's Temple belonged to the priests and the Pharisees. It was not God's altar any longer! In fact, the Jews had already driven God out of His Own House. The Temple was theirs, not His. God Himself had already been driven outside the gate! Jesus had already demonstrated this when He made a whip and drove the moneychangers out of the Temple, yelling, "This is to be a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves." The Jews had already taken the Temple and turned it into their own den.

Amazingly, Psalm 69.9 refers to the Jews having "kicked God out" in two parts. Referring to when they turned the Temple a den of thieves, the first part of the verse is the line used by John to describe Jesus' driving the moneylenders out of the Temple: "For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up."

And the second part of the Ps. 69.9 refers to Jesus' crucifixion: "the reproaches of them that reproached Thee are fallen upon Me."

What is the psalmist saying? It's saying that people -- God's enemies -- had already brought "reproach" against God and then brought that same reproach against God's Messiah. And Hebrews says, "Jesus... suffered outside the gate...", bearing the reproach of the Jewish legalizers.

13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.
14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.

The Jewish religious leaders put the same reproach and disgrace on Jesus that the psalmist prophesied -- having already disgracefully rejected God the Father, they then disgracefully rejected Jesus.

And you better watch out -- having disgracefully rejected Jesus, they're going to disgracefully reject you.

How is it possible for "Jewish legalizers" to "reject us" with the same "rejection" they put on Jesus"

Well, Jewish legalizers won't -- but any "Christian" who is protecting their "old wineskin" is going to put shame and reproach on you and drive you "outside the camp".

Any time God moves in a new and a fresh way, the greatest hindrance to the "new" move of God, is the last "successful" move of God! When Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant and ushered in the New, those who "ate at the altar of the old", crucified Him in the garbage dump.

What then does it mean that you and I are to "bear the reproach of Christ"?

Simply this: When we choose to walk with Jesus Christ, we will be "reproached" and "disgracefully" put "outside the camp" by Christians representing and defending their old and familiar religious ways. Not that there's anything in particular wrong with their "old ways" -- but there's something fantastically right about leaving the "old" behind in order to go onward with Jesus into the "coming invasion of earth by the Kingdom of Heaven"!

Isa. 43.18-19:
Forget the former things! Do not dwell on the past!
LOOK! I AM doing a new thing!
Now it springs up...do you not see it?

Bless you all!

Emil & Michele Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

Making EVERY Effort...

It isn't as if Paul's command here is complicated: "Make every effort to keep the unity in the bond of peace." We're to "spare no effort"


James Thurber, I believe, is the one who quipped, "It is better to have loafed and lost than never to have loafed at all."

When I read Paul's exhortation in Ephesians 4, all I can think is that the Church better quit loafing before all is lost. Read these verses carefully and see if you can spot Paul's main point. What is it he wants from us? (Look carefully -- it may be tricky! Even Peter said Paul's writings were easily misunderstood!)

Eph. 4.1-6 -- I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in you all. [Emphasis mine]

There's none so blind as he who will not see? There are some who can read the above verses and still not see Paul's main point -- blindingly obvious as it is:

Paul orders us to be one.

Paul orders us to be one.

Paul orders us to be one.

Paul orders us to be one.

Paul orders us to be one.

God orders us to be one.

Recently I came across a statement by J. I. Packer that it's about time for Christians who believe in the fundamental truths of Scripture to come together for fellowship and witness regardless of denominational identity. All he's saying is what Paul said in his letter to the Ephesian Christians.

In the first verse, Paul "beseeches" or "begs" us to walk worthy of the "vocation" to which we are called. (Whenever I preach on this I have to make sure people read "vocation" here, not "vacation".)

God has not called us Christians to a vacation -- some "groovy Jesus trip". He's called us to work. A vocation is a career, someone's long-term, regular occupation. If a person pumps gas for a summer that's a job; if they buy the station and pump gas the rest of their life that's their vocation.

But if every Believer in Jesus Christ has been divinely enlisted to go to work, just what is that work? Let's look at some of the job description Paul throws in here: this vocation requires humility and gentleness towards others, being slow in receiving offense from others and able to hold up under the pressure of other people...

But what's the vocation to which all Believers in Jesus Christ have been called?

Love. To live and walk with others in love. And in so doing, to build up the Body of Christ into full stature!

That's not so easy. What's easy is getting mad at everyone we've got to live around. It's easy to see how other people who consider themselves "Christians" are really just phonies. It's easy being offended at how the Pastor handles a problem in the church. It's easy getting angry (especially self-righteously angry) when someone else in the church comes against our favorite person or program.

How true it is that it's hard to soar like eagles when you live with a bunch of turkeys.

I remember hearing of an old southern preacher who was a bit hard of hearing. He was hobbling with his cane down the sidewalk until at the corner he turned and entered the crosswalk on his way over to the general store. A teenager, speeding through town, saw him and hardly slowed as he whipped around the corner and came within a hair's breadth of running the old minister down -- just grazing past so the fellow fell backwards into the muddy street. The car sped out of town as the old preacher held his cane high, shaking it and screaming, "You blasted kids! You blankity-blank morons! Don't you know I'm a man of God!"

Doesn't the world know by now that we're "men and women of God"?

How long's it going to take before they realize that we Christians -- Children of the Most High God -- reflect in our daily lives the Savior of this World, the Conqueror of Evil, the Shepherd of Love?

It won't take long -- as soon as we start doing it. As soon as we get to work and get our vocation out of the mud. After all, it isn't as if Paul's command here is complicated: "Endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

I remember hearing another translation which says, "Make every effort to keep the unity in the bond of peace." The New English Bible says we're to "spare no effort". Make every effort doesn't guarantee success. Some brothers and sisters simply won't obey God and cooperate. But if there's any lack, let it be on the part of another and not myself. Meanwhile, I'll "make every effort..."

In his book, Expository Reflections on the Letter to the Ephesians, Leon Morris comments on verse three, "keep the unity":

Paul now turns to the importance of Christian unity (v. 3). This is not the achievement of believers; it is something that is done for them by Christ. They are not commanded to bring this unity about, for Christ has done this. They are to "keep" it, that is, to ensure that it continues. That believers are to bear with one another surely implies that sometimes they will not see eye to eye and that one believer will think that another is in error. Though among other [secular] groups that might be thought cause for quarrels, that is not the way Christians should behave. When we consider the grievous quarrels believers have had with one another through the centuries, it is clear that some of us have given insufficient attention to the apostle's injunction. But whatever mistakes believers have made, that is no cause for us to forsake the command Paul gives. Unity among believers is of first importance and we are to show diligence in maintaining it. There may be occasions when we cannot succeed, but that should never be our fault. We should all put forth our best effort and be diligent to maintain unity.

I am not denying that sometimes the differences between believers have been so strong that schism was the necessary result. Nor am I denying that in the modern church it is sometimes necessary for a strong stand to be made in the face of firm opposition from other believers. But I am saying that nothing gives us license to ignore the apostle's direction. Whatever be the case with other people, and no matter where there are divergent opinion, nothing gives us license to cease to act in love or to let unity slip away.

So, what must we do?



Make every effort!

*****************FOOTNOTES

Morris, Leon; Expository Reflections on the Letter to the Ephesians, pub. by Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI; copyright 1994; p.115.



Emil & Michele Swift
KingdomScribes.InJesus.com

There Are None So Blind, As They Who WILL NOT See...

KingdomScribes!

There are two well-known scientific experiments that are valuable for "KingdomScribes".

One deals with many people's sense of "helplessness" about being able to interpret the Scriptures accurately and deeply for themselves.

The other deals with many people's flat inability to see something in Scripture other than what they've "seen" there before or been "told" is there by a favorite teacher.

Don't forget -- a KingdomScribe's "favorite teacher" is...the Kingdom of Heaven! (If you don't remember or know what this refers to, look at the very first post on this blog.)

Now listen, you may not enjoy reading about scientific experiments (especially the first one on "helplessness") but I promise you, if you grasp their implications, both of them will change how you see people and how you minister. So, don't skim through "looking for the Bottom Line"!!! Be a "good" KingdomScribe and read them both carefully!

Experiment 1. Learned Helplessness

Back in the '70s, scientists set up an experiment with dogs. (Now -- I wouldn't have done an experiment like this, but seeing it was done, there's some valuable insight here.)

They performed the experiment with a number of dogs and the results were not only astonishing, but were the same across the board.

Each dog was placed in a wire cage which could be electrified enough to make the dogs very uncomfortable. The cages had six sides of wire mesh. With the current turned on, every dog at first made excited efforts to escape from the cage, to no avail.

Finally, after many shocks, each dog got to the point where when it felt the current, it simply lay helplessly still on the floor of the cage.

Then, the top of the cage would be removed, and the current again applied.

But now the dog would just continue lying still on the electrified wire mesh. It made no attempt to jump out the top of the cage.

Next, the scientists removed one side of the cage, then another until all sides to the cage were gone.

When they threw the current and the dog would whimper, it still wouldn't move off the wire mesh. Even though nothing held the dog from freedom, it would continue to lay on the electrified mesh and whimper.

It had learned helplessness.

People can "learn helplessness" as well.

This has serious implications, even beyond the study of Scriptures. If you've been involved with ministering to people for any length of time, you've probably been confused, astonished, upset or even angry to see people who have been set free by Jesus Christ but who have been totally unable to appropriate that freedom. You "lift" them and "encourage" them and "stand alongside" of them through thick and thin -- but then they turn right back into their lives of helplessness.

There are people who totally and radically believe in the freedom that Jesus has won for them and imparted to them, but who cannot stand in this freedom.

Understand, some people have had "helplessness" engraved into the physical/chemical process of their brains by what they've experienced. These "patterns in the brain" are called "engrams" -- actual biochemical changes in brain tissue that represents a memory.

What can we do for a person who is not simply a bit "doubtful" about God, but believes in God and believes in their salvation...but whose brains have been "engraved" with "helplessness"?

They need the neural tissues of their brains "healed".

This is illustrated in Scripture. Look in Mark 8:

22 They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. 23 He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spat on the man's eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, 'Do you see anything?" 24 He looked up and said, "I see people; they look like trees walking around." 25 Once more Jesus put his hands on the man/s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.

This is the only instance I know about where Jesus had to pray twice for someone to be completely healed.

Selah!

Anyway, the first time Jesus "put His hands on him", He asked, "Do you see anything?"

And, yes -- the formerly blind man could see...after a fashion. He said he could see people, but then said that these people "looked like trees walking around".

It doesn't say in Mark's account that this man had been born blind, but it would fit nicely. Let's speculate a bit. If this man had never seen, then the neural cells involved with sight would never have matured.

This is normal. When a person has been blind or deaf for most of their life, and a picture (MRI, et. al.) is taken of their brain, the area of the brain associated with that sense is small, having never received the stimulation necessary for it to develop and mature.

When I look at Jesus' "two-stage" healing, I can't help but wonder of the first healing was the man's eyes, and the next the never developed neural tissues in his brain.

Here's why I suspect this may have happened: When his "eyes" were opened, he processed the new "signals" in terms of what was already familiar. He "saw" people, but he "saw" them as "trees, walking". Trees, now -- he was familiar with trees. He'd probably stood by them and held onto them for years. And the new-formed signals going into his brain, he tried to process with a part of his brain that was already highly developed -- touch.

But Jesus "put His hands on him" a second time, and the man suddenly could process the new signals from his eyes correctly.

Why do I use this Scripture as an illustration? This Scripture at least allows for the possibility that part of a person's healing may include healing neural pathways inside the brain...

And "learned helplessness" may require that healing.

One last example about "learned helplessness": Have you ever tried to teach someone how to do something -- say, algebra -- if they've "learned" that they are "helpless" to do it? You can do things like say, "Now -- remember that the little asterisk [*] means to multiply the numbers?" "Of course!" "OK -- so we have 3*6...tell me in English what that means." [Complete silence.]

The problem is that when a person has "learned helplessness", their brains can't get past their belief in their helplessness!

Let's wrap up the first experiment and apply it to KingdomScribes and Bible study:

Let's say that someone doesn't read well. Or they've been told by their dad that they're "stupid". Or that they've listened to "Bible teachers" many, many times with the thought, "How do they understand the Word like that -- I'll never be able to understand the Bible for myself -- it's too difficult for me to understand."

Well, the Bible's not too difficult for anybody of normal or near-normal intellect to understand for themselves. But as KingdomScribes, there are times we'll run into people who simply won't try to interpret the Bible with the simple study skills needed for accurate understanding. They won't even try, because they may have "learned helplessness".

If we encounter people who stare blindly when you try to share the skills and techniques of studying the Word or hearing the Voice of the Author in respect to the Bible, stop and consider if they may be hindered by "learned helplessness" -- and if so, healing ministry is needed for the neural paths in the brain before success can ever be achieved.

Experiment 2: Changing the Way a Person Sees

In his book, Chaos, by James Gleick, there's described a truly disturbing experiment conducted back in the '40s. The scientists had made up special decks of playing cards -- many of which were normal but a few of which were "tweaked" in one way or another.

For example: Instead of the black six of spades, they had a red six of spades made or a black queen of diamonds.

Then they showed the cards to people at a fairly high rate of speed. At high speed, nothing seemed wrong. No one caught any of the "wrong" cards. If they were shown a red six of spades (instead of the usual black) they'd call out either "six of hearts" or "six of spades".

But when they displayed the cards more slowly, the people started to hesitate. They became aware there was a problem, but weren't sure what was wrong. A person might say things like, "There's something wrong with that card" or "There's a red border around that black heart".

When they slowed the pace even more, most people would catch on. They would see the wrong cards and make the mental shift needed to say what they saw without error.

But there were a few people who responded very oddly. A few suffered a disorientation that they considered really painful. They'd say things like, "I can't make out that suit, whatever it is." One person responded, "It didn't look like a real card. In fact, I don't remember what color it is or whether it's a spade or a heart. My God! I'm not even sure what a spade looks like right now!"

Facing the unexpected can have serious, even painful, results in some people.

When some people saw a red spade (supposed to be black!), they had such a strong predisposition to see a black spade that their brains couldn't process that they were looking at something different than that which was already familiar. And the attempt sometimes left the person feeling distraught.

Then, too, some people (you'll find them every so often), simply can NOT see something different in Scripture than what they've already accepted as "true" -- even when you can show it in "black-and-white" in the Bible itself!

What the above experiment shows is that our brains struggle and -- under certain circumstances -- simply refuse to "see" what is right before us, even if it's a page of the Bible we're looking at.

During sermons, it's not unusual for me to pause after reading a verse and say, "Now -- let's stop for a moment and look at this again...I want you to understand that I'm not adding anything to the Bible here...if you look carefully at this verse you can see it says..." and we'll re-read it.

And re-read it a third time. Sometimes (if it's especially unexpected or contrary to people's prior teaching) we'll read it a fourth time.

Why? Because (like the above experiment) people's brains sometimes get totally blocked in reading Scripture, when it flies in the face of their prior beliefs. And sometimes, people feel distraught or even "pain" when looking at something that disagrees with the previous beliefs.

An example is Mat 25. [This is probably not TOO threatening! But brace yourself. Maybe you've already looked at this particular issue before -- but then maybe not.]

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations [Greek: ethnos meaning "all people, everyone"] and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Here we are at the judgment seat of Christ -- the great dividing between the sheep (called the "righteous" in verses 37 & 46) and the goats (by implication, the unrighteous.)

First -- if you've been trained as a dispensationalist, you'll have great trouble even seeing what this passage says in contrast to what you've been taught. With people who've been taught these complicated dispensationalist systems, they tend to instantly go into the "multiple Throne" mode, and argue over whether these "sheep" are "Christians" or not, whether the "nations" are "Gentiles" or "everyone" (but ethnos means "everyone") and other complications.

But to anyone who just simply READS IT, it's clear that the "sheep" are the "righteous" who enter "life eternal", and the "goats" are those who are cast into "everlasting punishment".

Already, many of you may have "alarm bells ringing"...

Please... as "Scribes" who are "discipled by the Kingdom of Heaven", it's essential that you be able to quiet those alarms, relax, and see what the Scriptures DO or DON'T say!

Here's the thing many people don't see: What is the basis for which Jesus says a person will go into "life eternal" as contrasted with those who go into "everlasting punishment"?

Is it their "faith in Jesus Christ"?

No.

I'm not saying that faith in Jesus Christ isn't necessary or isn't the sole means whereby we're saved...

I'm just asking if that's what Jesus gives as the "reason" for people going into "life eternal".

And it's NOT what Jesus says.

This is why some people desperately have to reinterpret this Throne-scene as not applying to Christians... It's because they are afraid to hear the Words of Jesus saying something other than what their personal teachings have settled on. It's because what Jesus says sounds like we're "saved" by "good works."

Look at the Word! Jesus says, "The reason you're going to enter into life eternal is because when I was hungry, you fed Me: when I was thirsty, you gave Me a drink: when I was a stranger, you took me in..."

DOES THE SCRIPTURE SAY THIS OR NOT?

"KingdomScribes" don't turn a blind eye to Scripture when that Scripture doesn't agree with their preconceptions. Here's what they do when something in Scripture shows up that doesn't fit their pre-conceptions:

"KingdomScribes" take the Scriptures, read them very, very carefully -- then go spend some time in the Father's Presence, asking for wisdom from the One Who will not upbraid, and understanding from the One Who opens the eyes of our understanding.

Selah!

OK -- at the bottom of these posts is a little icon that if you click it, a pop-up window opens up so you can share your comments with everybody.

I'm not going to tell you how I interpret these verses (other than to assure you that understanding them is really quite simple, especially when you take into consideration some things the brother of Jesus says...)

Give us some feed-back! Tell us why Jesus says good works will determine whether you go into life eternal or everlasting punishment!


Emil & Michele Swift
KingdomScribes.InJesus.com

P.S If this passage in Mt 25 is a new issue for you, enter its study with high expectations! You can receive something here that will focus your life spiritually more than before. The Truth in this passage is very "anti-religious" and life-transforming!

Understanding Prophecy -- Natural and Spiritual Interpretations

.
.
.
We're posting our response to a recent question from one of our "KingdomScribes". It's valuable to "KingdomScribes" because it illustrates a fundamental issue in interpreting prophecies -- both in our natural minds, and in our spirits.

Here's the question:

Why did John deny he was Elijah? Jesus clearly states in the New Testament that John is Elijah. Why does John deny that he is Elijah at the beginning of the Gospel of John? Was he unaware of who he was at the time, or was he afraid people would think he was greater than or on the same level as Christ? [After some info from a commentary, he wrote] I see. What I am getting from this is that John denied that he was Elijah in the flesh as they had meant when they questioned him, but not that he was Elijah in spirit. I wonder whether he fully understood who he was?

Our response...

Thanks for bringing this question to our attention! It raises a few, interesting issues -- specifically about how we must interpret prophecies in our natural minds and in our spirits.

First -- the commentaries you referred to [Clark, Barnes, etc.] cover the question well.

As they say, the Jews expected the "person" of Elijah in the flesh. (Much as in Jewish Passover today in which an extra place setting is left at the supper table "for Elijah" should he appear... He would probably be hungry, having been gone for 3,000 years...)

Anyway -- based on the widespread misunderstanding the Old Testament prophecies, neither the Jews nor John "recognized" that he was "Elijah".

Remember how after Peter declared that Jesus was the Messiah (the Christ, in Greek), Jesus said, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven"?

Well, for someone to understand that John was "spiritually" Elijah, it would have to be a revelation "from the Father" --no "flesh and blood" rabbi could have come up with that.

You might wonder --if John were "filled with the Spirit from the womb", why didn't he just know that he was the "spiritual Elijah"?

Well -- God doesn't choose to reveal everything to us. For example, despite the incredible anointing of the Spirit on Elisha (2Kngs 4.25), God withheld some things from him. When the Shunammite woman's son had died, she ran to find Elisha. He saw her in the distance and sent his servant to run and meet her and find out what the problem was, because "the LORD hath hid it from me, and hath not told me."

So, (for whatever reason) Heaven chose NOT to clue John in on his identity as "Elijah". John only had the same Scriptures as the other Jews, and they weren't sufficient to disclose his "spiritual identity".

NOW THERE'S A REASON I'M CARRYING ON LIKE THIS! Not only did the Jews misunderstand the "coming of Elijah" since it didn't happen like they thought the prophecies said it would...but based on misunderstanding Old Testament prophecies, they also misunderstood the coming of the Messiah and so did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

HERE'S THE KICKER: John ALSO misunderstood the coming of the Messiah. He ALSO didn't recognize that Jesus was the Messiah.

Now, you might say, "Hold it! John is the one who identified Jesus as 'the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the wo