looking back

Why I hate friends who can't relate- false story tellers

2010-09-01T17:26:00.005+01:00

Well why not hate them... they probably deserve it-don't you think?

They are so annoying as they pretend to have no story.......

Those I know usually have very strong and deeply held story BUT refuse to share (in an open and honest human Christian interaction of equals) and thus maintain a false story on the surface which means .... you don't really know them. Goffman (sociologist, symbolic interactionist) describes it in terms of front-stage and backstage, all are actors in the creation of the narrative of life. Goffman exposes / describes the fracture between the 'contradictory' stories that people tell by calling us to observe both front AND back stage.

You can never know those who have a hidden / unspoken story, an untold story or a false story. As followers of the Messiah Jesuse our story should be embedded in HIS story and thus HIS narrative forces all those who declare allegiance to HIM to bring their story and lay it at HIS feet -the feet of the brothers and sisters we intersect / interact with. It is only then my history is validated and slips into the Jesus narrative.

I want a Jesus story in my life.....don't you.

Trying out Adobe Contribute blogger writer....

2010-03-31T05:41:00.001+01:00

Yes you can blog with Contribute ....seeems good to me

Living Together (Cohabitation) v Marriage

2009-11-16T12:48:00.010Z

I was thinking recently that a good analogy of church v community is the practice of people living together rather than getting married. Many couples today choose to 'live together'. I was talking to a couple recently who had lived together for a few years and then decided to marry. I asked why had they not just got married. The answer came from the wife who said ..'well you need to live together to see if your compatible and to test the waters first'. And why had they married, ' it seemed like the right thing to do now', she continued.
This started me thinking of church and why Christians attend religious services and will not however commit to community or a shared life with the beauty of the 'one another' verses intertwined into their daily lives. As I looked at this couple I wondered why people are so afraid to commit to something which has stood the test of time. The stats more stats for people who cohabit and then marry are bad however. A big chunk break up after only a few years and so the process starts again, I wonder how does this affect any children? What does it say about relationships to the children? How much damage does it do to them?

Anyway, they find another partner who they will now live with but not commit to and are usually less likely to marry them after the failure of the first marriage. Of course many people NEVER take the get married stage and they just break up. They conclude, '...that was lucky- we could have been married', thank God we were only living together. Thus 'failure' is the proof of the 'correctness' of 'living together' . I guess we all like a backdoor out or do we?

Does this sound like church or what!

Most believers are living together to test the waters and never intend to go beyond this. There is no need to go beyond and get into some stronger bond when 'all' needs are met in the weaker bond. BUT is this true? Are my needs met in the weaker bond?
Talk to me

Ekklesia v Church

2009-08-03T14:00:00.008+01:00

I must admit that I have been wrong in my understanding of the word 'church'. I have for all of my christian life taught that we should distinguish the various usages of this word. I often talked about the Irish words/ phrases 'teach on pobail' and 'pobail dé' to show the difference. 'Teach on pobail' means the house of the people and 'pobail dé' means the people of God. So I encouraged believers to distinguish between these two meanings. We are the church we are not a building- but people. Of course when ever anyone said church I would automatically add building, when they were referencing the building. For instance see that church- I would interrupt and say you mean church building don't you. So all of my believing life I have insisted that in my presence you do this because I wanted to reinforce the fact that we are a living body and not dead stones.

Anyway
I recently done a talk at a conference in the USA - Searching Together- with Jon Zens and my subject was the word Ekklesia- its meaning. However in the NT translations ( except for Tyndale and maybe one other) it is translated 'church' So I delved in a bit further and found the following interesting bits of knowledge.

The word Ekklesia has no relation whatsoever to the word 'church', in fact it means assembly or congregation or better still the asembley of the Lord ( referencing the OT use of qahal translated in the Septuagint as ekklesia. In Matthew Jesus indicating that He was replacing the OT congregation of the Lord states 'I will build MY congregation'

The etymology of the word church however is what shook me. It came into usage in 300+ AD when the house where the believers met was called 'church'. The word comes from two greek words Kurios and Oikos meaning Lord's house. It was used by the now very institutionalised religious to name the institution and buildings. So in reality the word 'church' does mean the buildings and by extension the 'institutions' . When with the discovery of printing the bible was translated into German the word Kirch was used to translate 'ekklesia'. Again this was the word that described those involved with and the actual institution of the religious, the priests and, bishops and popes and the political power structures that had involved over the previous centuries.

Tyndale when he started translating the bible into English translated ekklesia as congregation. This was a mistake, the establishment came down on him like a tonne of bricks. And he had to flee and hide most of the time he was involved with translating the scriptures. He finally gave his life and was hung and burned. A year later his work was released under the title Matthew's Bible BUT it had been altered to suit the institution to keep their power structures in place. The word ekklesia was now once again 'church'. King James insisted that the word church be uses of the Greek word ekklesia in the King James version of 1611. He laid down various stipulations about the translation and this was one of them.

So the word 'church' which has no biblical basis whatsoever was placed in the NT to maintain the powerful institution of the religious at this time.
The question is why with the increase of scholarship in this area and the reality that the word ekklesia means community WHY is it still been translated by the word 'church' which is a bastard word of human construction. For example we have many words that we use to describe the fair sex,
babe
dish
boo
honey
bitch
and many more you can fill the rest yourself, as I am sure you have some local varieties. However I do not imagine that you would translate any passage in the scriptures with any of the above.
In the beginning God created males and babes, ...mmmm I don't think so. Babes should be silent in the ekklesia.....mmmm I don't think so. BUT WHY NOT?

Because even though we know these words are commonly used of women they ae not in the scripture and also they are power words created to subjugate women or describe them in purely sexual terms. In other words they are offensive and are inappropriate in transltion. BUT the word 'church' is an inappropriate word also BUT is still in there and loving it.

Crap

2009-06-15T14:02:00.003+01:00

you can only take so much crap before you need to crap yourself

Viola is missing the point in new book-From here to Eternity

2009-04-21T17:13:00.000+01:00

Having finished reading Frank Viola's new book- From here to eternity, I must say I was disappointed in the way it developed and the way it ended with no serious treatment of the 'humanity' of God's creation. He reminds me a lot of the latter rain writers who were preoccupied with the symbolic meanings of the OT in particular- Viola has extended this to the NT. What I was looking for was a 'human interest' -God so loved...-story but all I got was some insights into jargon and 'hidden spiritualities' . Viola uses the various symbolic representations of the scripture to talk about US -yes you and me- the people of God but without bringing then fully down to earth- in humanity.

He starts with the 1st Eve and then US the 2nd Eve. Jesus is seeking a bride - a woman if you will- to love and He the lonely bachelor finds it in US. A wife worthy of Himself.

The Father is seeking a dwelling place- yes that's US as well. Finally He gets it in a city Whose maker and builder is GOD, well US for sure.

He is also seeking a family it appears and sons ( and daughters I presume) to carry on His name. AND He finds His family in Christ- US.

Then finally we have the 'new species' a Viola calls US.. the 3rd race - 'Jew'-'Gentile' and the 'church of God' ( 1 Cor 10:320) we the body of Christ are the new species if you will. or US again.

Okay then were moving now.....
We have women(Eve ? & the Bride?) and children and marriage and sons and daughters and new buildings the city of God, the temple and a new body for His Son Jesus.

BUT I guess if we take an overview of the eternal purpose of our God I think we can say this- He created a world- physical and earthy and populated it somehow with ordinary human beings ( not Martians) and because of sin and our downhill story we ended up in a mess only to be rescued by our great God and through and in Jesus He has reconstituted humanity- a new humanity if you like- a humanity that is the original intention of God. God set out from the beginning to have earth populated by ordinary human beings who live in harmony with Him and each other- where peace reigns and love rules. The Resurrection does not usher in some new form of humanity or produce a new new race with Jesus as the head of some 'spiritual' body of a new race people BUT cements the reality of the eternal purpose of God which was a people who would live for ever and share His life.

Humanity was and is the central occupation of our God- He loves this old world that is US ( he loves the creation as well) BUT it is the people who live on earth that he gave His life for to restore that fallen imprint of the creator -Jesus.

All the symbolic representations are surely about our God seeking to live in relationship with His creation. I think if anyone makes something -anything- it is important to the maker that the intended use/ purpose is fulfilled. God created mankind to have a bunch of people to hang out with and who also liked hanging out with each other.

His purpose was not to create some horrible 'spiritual' reality where people separate their human lives from their 'spiritual lives'. A life where our humanity is subjugated to so called 'spiritual' callings and realities. Viola dealt adequately with the symbols BUT did not transform them into the actual realities they were speaking about.

TODAY'S ISRAEL: IS GOD ON HER SIDE?

2009-01-15T16:21:00.000Z

The following article was written by Jon Zens and appeared in SEARCHING TOGETHER MAGAZINE, Winter, 1991. TODAY'S ISRAEL: IS GOD ON HER SIDE?

"Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, says he has been assured by Prime Minister Menachem Begin that Israel eventually will control an area that includes parts of Egypt and Turkey. Begin shares the Biblical view of the promised land said Falwell in a copyright story in Sunday's editions of the Tyler Courier-Times Telegraph. He said Begin, whom he termed a personal friend, told him that the first book of the Bible predicts Israel eventually will have boundaries on the Euphrates and Nile rivers and will include portions of Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan and Kuwait." Eugene Register-Guard (Eugene. OR), Feb. 7, 1983. The above Israel-centered sentiments reflect one popular viewpoint among Bible-believers in America. Adherents of this view believe that all nations must bless and protect Israel or incur God's wrath. Few, however, realize that this particular prophetic perspective began in England with the Irvingites and J.N. Darby in the 1830's. This outlook had never before been suggested in the history of Christian thinking. Yet, because of seven trips that Darby made to America during his lifetime in the nineteenth century, his views ultimately came to dominate among evangelicals in the States. The essence of this position is that God has two purposes in history, an earthly one with Israel and a heavenly one with the church. From this vantage point what transpires in the world is Israel-centered. Hence, Charles Feinberg's 1980 hook is titled Israel: At The Center Of History and Revelation (Multnomah Press). As a result, the literature on "prophecy" that fills the shelves of bookstores brings readers the following dogmatic opinions: What is God's will for today? This can be put into one word: Israel. Israel is the final chord of a scriptural age and at the same time she is the prelude to a new age, the millennium, the thousand years of peace. The eternal God is busy today fulfilling his holy will, that is, concerning Israel herself.... All nations are compelled today to do God's will so that it is actually being said to Israel, "be built" and to the temple "be laid."
The land given to Israel was never intended to be an end in itself. It pointed to something better in the future.
This two-purposes theory, which came to be called "Dispensationalism," carries with it a peculiar notion about Israel's "right" to certain geographical territory in Palestine. Proponents of this view claim that God has given Israel that land "forever." If she has a "divine right" to this soil, then it is easy to see how this provides justification for all types of military conflict, and causes a stumbling block to peaceful political solutions in the Middle East. (Of course, the problem is compounded since all Middle Eastern nations claim that God is with them). Does Israel have God's sanction to possess a land in these days? Must Christians support Israel because God is with her in some special way? Is this post-1948 nation the center of history? Is Christ or Israel the focus of God's revelation? These and other questions will be addressed in what follows.
God Promised a Land to Abraham
In Genesis 12:5-7 God spoke to Abraham and promised, "to your seed I will give this land." This foundational promise to Abraham is the premise for contemporary claims that God has given a specific land to Israel "forever." However, it is significant that Paul saw these words given to Abram-"in you all the nations will be blessed" - as an announcement of the gospel to the Gentiles, not as an indication of Israel's centrality as a measuring stick for world events (Gal. 3:8).
God Sealed This Promise in a Covenant Ceremony
In Genesis 15:7-21 God makes a covenant with Abraham which was ratified by God symbolically passing through the pieces of meat. The giving of a defined territory is at the heart of this solemn ceremony: "to your seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates; the Kenites, the Kenizites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perrizites, the Rephaims, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and Jesushites." In the midst of this covenant-making event, the future of Israel is spelled out: bondage in Egypt for 400 years; the judgment upon Pharaoh; the Exodus; and entrance into the land described above in the fourth generation.
God Fulfilled This Abrahamic Promise Later in History
It is clear from a number of Old Testament statements that the land-promise to Abraham was indeed fulfilled. The land was given delineated in Genesis 15, and several verses in Joshua are especially forceful in this regard: So Joshua took the entire land, just as the Lord had directed Moses, and He gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions (Josh. 11:23).... So the Lord gave Israel all the land He has sworn to their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. The Lord gave them rest on every side, just as He had sworn to their forefathers....Not one of all the Lord's good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled (Joshua 21:41-45).
The law-covenant had a historical beginning and ending (Gal 3:17,19,25; Heb 8:13).
There are many other Old Testament scriptures that echo this fulfillment theme (Gen. 28:13-15; 1 Kings 4:21, 8:56; Deut. 28; Exodus 3:17, 6:8; Deut. 30:20, 1:8, 7:2, 11:23, 34:1-4; Joshua 23:13-16; Neh. 9:8, 21-25). If the territorial dimension of the Lord's promise to Abraham was fulfilled, as these scriptures assert, this raises serious questions about the propriety of suggesting that twentieth-century "Israel" has a divine claim to this land. The Lord accomplished His word: He gave the descendants of Abraham the land described in Genesis 15:18-21. To purport that God has somehow not yet fulfilled the land-promises, or that they actually came to fruition in 1948, is to stretch the original prophetic word to Abraham beyond recognition.
Israel's Remaining in this Land was Conditioned on Obedience
There are many verses in Deuteronomy that reflect the foundation of the Mosaic covenant, "do this and live," with respect to the land. If Israel ever went after other gods and broke the covenant, she was assured by God that she would be "cast out of the land." Abiding in the land God had given to them was linked to their faithfulness. Unfaithfulness had serious consequences.
Abiding in the land, God had given to them, was linked to their faithfulness.
Israel's later history reflected the implications of her disobedience. The land was invaded by foreigners, and Israel was captive in a strange land. As time went on the Israelites were "dispersed" to various places in the world. It is this "casting out'' of Israel from the land that sets the stage for a future concept of regathering into that lost territory.
The New Testament Perspective on Israel and the Land
The New Testament teaches that the formation, history and institutions of Israel were types and shadows of spiritual realities that would come in the days of the Messiah (Heb.8:1-5; 1 Cor.10:18). The essential elements of Israel's life as a covenant people (prophet, priest, king, sacrificial system, ark of the covenant, etc.) were all fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Luke 24:27, 44-45; Rom.15:8; 2 Cor.1:20).
The ...institutions of Israel were types and shadows of spiritual realities that would come in the days of the Messiah.
The preparatory nature of the Mosaic economy must be underscored. The law-covenant had an historical beginning and ending (Ga1.3:17, 19, 25). The old covenant was temporary and lasted only "until the Seed (Christ) had come." When the fulfillment had come there was no reason to continue the types and shadows (Co1.2:16-17). Israel as an earthly people separated to God by the Exodus was to be fulfilled by Christ, whose obedience unto death constituted a New Exodus that would separate a New Covenant people for God's service. It is only in this light that the "promised land" must be evaluated. The land given to Israel was never intended to be an end in itself. It pointed to something better in the future. Even Abraham who received the promises did not focus on earthly geography, but rather on a "better country - a heavenly one. . . whose architect and builder is God" (Heb.ll:16,10). Like other aspects of Israel's covenant life, the land was a picture of gospel realities to come, not an ongoing entity to be somehow reclaimed in the future by an earthly people in 1948.
The land was a picture of gospel realities to come, not an ongoing entity to somehow be reclaimed in the future by an earthly people in 1948.
The concept of "Israel" is fulfilled both in Christ and in the new people of God, the body of Christ. Jesus, like Israel, is called out of Egypt (Matt.2:15) and finds Himself in the wilderness (Matt.4:1-2). Jesus, unlike Israel, is obedient to the covenant and is the "faithful servant" referred to in the Prophets. In light of the emphasis given to alleged unalterable promises made to Israel about the land, it is instructive to recall that God's words were addressed to Abraham and his "seed." This "Seed," says Paul, was singular and refers to Christ, not to an earthly people (Ga1.3:16). Thus, for example, the promised offspring to Abraham must be seen as an innumerable company of believers, not as a regathering of an earthly nation (Ga1.3:29; Rev.5:9, 7:9). The physical descendants of Abraham, who indeed became like the sand of the sea in number, were a picture of the harvest Christ would accomplish in the gospel age from every tribe, kindred and people. For this reason believers can be referred to by Paul as "the Israel of God" (Ga1.6:16).
The Rise of "Zionism"
Because Israel was cast out of the covenant land and forced to exist in cultures outside of Palestine, it is not surprising that as history elapsed a new form of Israelite nationalism would arise. From the time of Constantine onwards those attached to the synagogues had a rough time functioning in other countries. They were often persecuted, mistreated, misunderstood and discriminated against. Nevertheless, being hard workers, they tended to prosper in their trades and businesses. "Zion" came to refer to the deep attachment most Jews had for their homeland. "Zionism" is primarily a modern movement that arose out of some social struggles of the nineteenth century. Anti-Semitism, especially in Eastern Europe and Russia, caused the Jews to long for a rebirth of Judaism. This became connected to their "right" to the old promised land. "Zionism" was divided into two camps. Some, like Ahad Ha'am, focused on spiritual renewal. But the major thrust, which was essentially political and nationalistic, came from men like Moses Hess, Leo Pinsker and Theodor Herzl. In the late nineteenth century some wealthy Jews in Western Europe helped assist in the establishment of small Jewish colonies in Palestine. In this context, Theodor Kerzl's per Judenstaat, "The Jewish State" (1896), became the foundation for modern Zionism. He came to the conclusion that a homeland for the Jews was the only solution to the mistreatment they were experiencing in most other places. Under his guidance the first Zionist Congress met in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897 and the World Zionist Organization was formed. A proposal for a Jewish homeland obviously created a serious conflict with those already living in Palestine. What would happen to those already occupying this region? Would these people leave peacefully so that Jews could live in ''their'' land? Herzl's ideas were passed on to a Russian-born Jew, Chaim Weizmann, in 1904. Because of his discovery of a powerful explosive called cordite (he was a chemist at the University of Manchester), Weizmann was brought into prominence. He used his influence to try and get the British government to conquer Palestine, hold it for Jewish immigration and settlement, and then allow the land to be used for British interests. Through a series of events the British took over Jerusalem in December of 1917. Then in the Balfour Declaration it was stated that Britain favored the establishment of a home in Palestine for the Jews, but not to the hurt of those already living in the area. Needless to say, in the ensuing years tensions began to mount between Jewish settlers and the Arab population. The Biltmore Conference (May, 1942), led by David Ben-Gurion, stated that British-controlled Palestine should become Jewish property. This alarmed many Jews, and as a result an anti-Zionist organization - The American Council for Judaism - was formed in May of 1943. With the knowledge of Hitler's atrocities against the Jews coming to light in May of 1945, the Zionist program regained strength and support. But Arabs resisted the importation of Jews into the land. In 1947 the British turned over their control of Palestine to the newly-formed United Nations Organization. Under much political pressure, the U.N. finally partitioned off' a small portion of the land (the size of Vermont) for the Jews in November of 1947. As the British withdrew in 1948, armed groups of Zionists forced thousands of Arabs to leave their homes. In the midst of this conflict there was a declaration of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. Since then there has been constant pressure for Jews to return to "the land." World Zionism looks upon this State as the home of all Jews. The Justification for Occupying "The Land" In order to justify the many political and military actions necessary to establish, maintain, defend and expand "the land," Zionists have used many Old Testament texts. Inherent in this approach is the idea that God is on Israel's side, and that He has purposed for her to possess this land. With this foundation a rationale is provided to kill people, to displace thousands of people, and to do what it takes to "rule."
"Support Israel or Experience God's Wrath" - Jerry Falwell
To add to the problem many conservative Christians believe that the Old Testament supports Israel's right to the land, and they see May 14, 1948, as an amazing fulfillment of "prophecy." Those who hold to this perspective believe that Christians must be pro-Israel. Jerry Falwell asserted at a meeting of religious broadcasters, "theologically, any Christian has to support Israel, simply because Jesus said to." During the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Oral Roberts confidently posited, "there is no way Israel is going to be defeated, according to the Bible." Thus many television and radio preachers and Christian leaders fervently encourage their followers to support Israel in her efforts to maintain the land, and even exhort believers to contribute financial aid for Israel's cause. Based on God's promise to Abraham -- "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you" -- many preachers are dogmatic in saying that all nations must support Israel or be doomed to the worst calamities. This leads to the conviction, of course, that the USA must support Israel's cause or experience God's wrath, as Jerry Falwell suggested. Tremendous pressure is exerted by pro-Israel forces upon our State Department not to do anything that would violate our good relations with Israel. To compound this problem, recent U.S. Presidents have embraced the notion of Israel's divine right to the land.
"God Is With Us"
The position of the Zionists and of many Christians creates many serious problems. If God is on Israel's side, then it becomes virtually impossible to critique her policies and actions. In principle, whatever Israel does must be right since God backs her supremacy in the land. We must never forget, however, that "God is with us" was inscribed on the belt buckles of those who burned Jews in ovens. History reveals that the "God is with us" slogan has often been behind the worst of atrocities.
God Is Not With Israel or Any Other Nation
In the former days God did separate Israel for Himself and gave her the land promised to Abraham. Israel was special among all the nations of the earth (Deut.7). But ultimately the blessing upon Abraham was to be given to all the nations (Matt.28:19-20). With the coming of Christ God fulfilled all the promises to the fathers (Rom.15:8). In this age, "God does not show favoritism, but accepts people from every nation who fear Him and do what is right'' (Acts 10:34). All of Israel's institutions were fulfilled in Christ - including the land concept Heb. 3-4). The Old Testament clearly states that God kept His word and gave the land to Israel. The notion that God had to give the land "again" is without Biblical foundation.
The notion that God has to give the land "again" is without Biblical foundation.
There is nothing wrong with Jews living in a certain land, but to claim a "divine right" to it and to employ this claim as a basis for disputing, hurting, and killing others is wrong. God is not with people when they manipulate and intimidate others. God uses the wicked actions of people in His purposes, but He does not sanction them.
Concluding Thoughts...
The Middle East conflicts have no easy solution. But we can be sure that a solution for the benefit of ail involved cannot be realized as long as many Jews and Christians continue to maintain that God is with Israel in the taking of "the land." The "divine right" notion will only block efforts for peace in the Middle East. It can only serve as continued justification for taking the lives of others in "serving God's cause." More importantly, however, it must be noted that the Israel-centeredness of much Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism diverts attention away from the One whom God has set His seal upon - Jesus Christ (John 6:27; Matt.3:17). People are blessed or cursed not by how they treat Israel, but by how they respond to the claims of Christ upon their lives (Psalm 2:12; 1 Cor.16:22). God's purpose focuses on the Son, not on an earthly nation (Eph.3:ll). God is not ruling all things with reference to Israel, but with reference to the body of Christ on earth (Eph.l:22). The unfolding of the future is not gauged by what happens to Israel, but by what Christ is doing to build His congregations.
People are blessed or cursed not by how they treat Israel, but by how they respond to the claims of Christ upon their lives (Psalm 2:12; 1 Cor.16:22).
The Scriptures - Old and New - specifically tell us how God is with us. Jesus' name was Immanuel - "God with us." God is with those who are in his Son, not with any nation. In this sense, then, He is with all those believers who are "in Christ."

Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper

2009-01-09T16:52:00.001Z

PROMISE 1
A Promise Keeper is committed to honoring Jesus Christ through worship, prayer and obedience to God's Word in the power of the Holy Spirit.
PROMISE 2
A Promise Keeper is committed to pursuing vital relationships with a few other men, understanding that he needs brothers to help him keep his promises.
PROMISE 3
A Promise Keeper is committed to practicing spiritual, moral, ethical, and sexual purity.
PROMISE 4
A Promise Keeper is committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values.
PROMISE 5
A Promise Keeper is committed to supporting the mission of his church by honoring and praying for his pastor, and by actively giving his time and resources.
PROMISE 6
A Promise Keeper is committed to reaching beyond any racial and denominational barriers to demonstrate the power of biblical unity.
PROMISE 7
A Promise Keeper is committed to influencing his world, being obedient to the Great Commandment (see Mark 12:30-31) and the Great Commission (see Matthew 28:19-20).
Mark 12:30-31
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. (NIV)
Matthew 28:19-20
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (NIV)
Related Resources
Download a Seven Promises Brochure (PDF)
Promise-Finder Bible Verse Index
Download a Seven Promises Study Guide (Word doc)
Download a Seven Promises Study Guide (PDF)

The Wedding Vows of Ming the Merciless

2009-01-09T16:23:00.000Z

Here are the wedding vows of Ming the Merciless to the captive Earthling, Dale Arden:

Priest: Do you, Ming the Merciless, Ruler of the Universe take this Earthling, Dale Arden to be your Empress of the hour?
Ming: (pause) of the hour, Yes.
Priest: Do you promise to use her as you will?
Ming: (pause, then very slyly) Certainly!
Priest: Not to blast her into space?
Ming: (silence)
Priest: ....Until such time as you get the whim....?
Ming: I do.
Dale: I DO NOT!!

That is funny as hell. And then there was the song that had the dialogue where Flash is fighting Ming's Imperial Guard, and they are getting their ass kicked, and Ming says to his General:"Are you sure you are giving them the right pills?"

Transparent

2009-01-09T00:24:00.001Z

I'm looking through you, where did you go
I thought i knew you, what did i know
You don't look different, but you have changed
I'm looking through you, you're not the same
Your lips are moving, i cannot hear
Your voice is soothing, but the words aren't clear
You don't sound differnt, i've learned the game.
I'm looking through you, you're not the same
Why, tell me why, did you not treat me right?
Love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight
You're thinking of me, the same old way
You were above me, but not today
The only difference is you're down there
I'm looking through you, any other way
Why, tell me why, did you not treat me right?
Love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight
I'm looking through you, where did you go
I thought i knew you, what did i know
You don't look different, but you have changed
I'm looking through you, you're not the same

New Testament Christianity not in vogue with Evangelicals

2009-01-07T11:55:00.000Z

As a Christian I have understood from the very begetting of my spiritual life that being a Christian is following Jesus and not any old Jesus BUT the Jesus revealed in the book- the Bible. From the start of my spiritual life I have been advised to daily read the bible and find the will of God for my life. Constantly I was told 'live the book'- put the book into practice. Furthermore i was enjoined to adhere to biblical inerrancy which states that the writers were inspired by God and that the teachings of the scriptures are the VERY word of GOD. Admonitions such as 'follow the Maker's instructions' and 'what would Jesus do' were commonplace at the inception of my Christian life. Therefore the bible speaks with an authoritative voice about life not only 'spiritual' life BUT all of my life. It had the definitive statements on all aspects of life touched on in the BOOK. Therefore my walk as a believer was to be regulated by the 'word of God' and to deviate from this was 'sin' missing the mark- the bullseye of God's fullness for whatever area of life I was thinking of - dealing with. Whatever that is not of FAITH is 'SIN' which evangelicals mean that which deviates from the plain teaching of the scriptures is 'SIN'. This leads to the conclusion that the biblical teachings on matters such as marriage, divorce, parenting, love, sex, dating, masturbation, relationships, anger, forgiveness, salvation, church life, community, leadership, women, children, men, love.... and all the other aspects revealed were AUTHORITATIVE and were meant to be obeyed.

BUT as I have discovered over these many years the teachings of the Scripture are given only a nodding assent to by Evangelicals and are not required to be obeyed in any committed way. The power of the scripture has been robbed the insane rise of individualism in post Renaissance times.

This leads us to look at the actual way that Evangelicals live their lives-

Marriage breakdown accepted and allowed. Between 30% & 50% of ALL Evangelical marriages end in divorce. Marriage is not in vogue with Evangelicals.

Abortion- the ratre of abortion is actually higher according to the stats I have seen in evangelical circles. The teenage pregnancies are the same as anywhere else and the abortion rate is high. LIFE is not in vogue with Evangelicals.

Child abuse- spousal beating, law suits and many other social issues that we read about in the secular arena are as pronounced in the Evangelical Churches. Forgivness is not in vogue with Evangelical Christians.

Church hopping- church splits occur more often among Evangelical Churches. The average Evangelical has been 'committed' to 5 different church groups in their lifetime. Community is not in vogue among Evangelical Christians.

Clear teaching in the scriptures on 'LIFE' are routinely ignored or suspended as Evangelicals deal with their 'real lives'.

The question is 'WHY'?

However on such issues as homosexual marriage and 'gay rights' modern day Evangelicals are willing to take to the streets and protest and spend lots of money fighting the 'MORAL DECAY' in society.

Come on now - smell the coffee- the moral decay is centered in our neglect of the simple instructions on being fully human as revealed in Jesus the Christ of God. As long as the church accepts relational breakdown as acceptable the breakdown of other relational areas will continue to spiral.

Church the only area in life where relational rules do not hold- Doug Heffernan

2009-01-07T11:54:00.000Z

Models of the church?

Community based model of church
Relationship is the key to success. Each member is encouraged to have a shared vision of a multiplicity of competing visions as each member grows to love and accommodate the burdens and understandings of the other. Difference is embraced and encouraged and the pastor/leader/leaders/elders (male & female) is (are) a member(s) of the body and not the head. All ‘visions’/ ‘ministries’callings'’ are openly taught from the scriptures and each minister has to engage with the other at the coalface of real life and from a biblical basis.
Since ‘community’ is not a program based but a relational based model of Christianity to leave you have to break relationship- there is no other way out- (laying on of hands or a coffin ( CP Schmitt)).

Program based model of church
Most ‘churches’ have such a low level of committment to real relational concepts and there is a continuous flow of people coming and going and no one really considers this as wrong-as long as the church keeps moving on ( relationships are elsewhere) . In this model the church is a gathering to enhance the vision or goals of the Pastors/Leaders and not the goals and visions of the various members ( there are of course some wonderful pastors/ leaders / men & women of God out there and I am not AGAINST them personally).

You can not look at a church from the outside and make a judgement on its ’spiritual status but you can look at what it believes and teaches and lives out in the lives of the members. I am totally against character assination as I have been shot at a good few times BUT we must engage our MINDS and our hearts when discussing what leaders teach. They have become the new untoucables. I however do not enjoy untouchable status as my fellow members are always engaged in deconstructing everything I do and it is always pointed out to me often in an UGLY way. Words like …….( fill in the blanks time) are often used to my face by my friends. They really don’t realise thta that in itself is a wondeful sign of a community church - the leaders are JUST like the rest of the pew warmers

However in in a world of NT scholarship and genuine advancements in our understanding of the scriptures can we live in a program based church and be committed to the teachings of the NT?
To live in relationship with our Jesus roots we must have a biblical mandate for what we do. Someone somewhere has to say STOP and encourage real relationships where covenant committment is accepted as the norm for relationship. ( Check out Frank Viola’s books on Pagan Christianity & NT Wright Simply Christian.)

Our goal is to never ‘by choice’ break fellowship- we have to answer to God for how we live our lives.

It hurts when people break relationship even for the best of reasons but that is what being human is all about- it involves the pains of real life where we love and are loved.

We all let people down all the time I personally have been hauled over the coals on many occasions for not sticking with people. I remember when we stopped visiting T?????? and handed the group there over to others to oversee- they never forgave us and we lost some wonderful friendships in the mess that followed. The same happened when we eventually moved from Cobh to Cork- having explained for months that we would be leaving and that we would no longer be leading the group there- we were castigated as deserters by some who could not understand that we were not their leaders BUT we had always taught that we were there only for a season- our loyalty was always to our community in Cork-. People get hurt due to faulty church attachements and faulty dependencies just as easy as when we do things wrong.

I have given my life to being in your face abouth biblical relational ideals and I do not intend to dum it down now

I do hope and pray that the community model of church will be adopted sooner rather than later. Time effort and money -look at your life over the past year and see where you put these and KNOW yourself.
Where your treasure is there is your heart also….

But in conclusion people usually go where their friends are……..

The Body of Christ CP Schmitt

2009-01-03T10:02:00.000Z

The Body of Christ is called to be a
redemptive, restorative, healing community.
The Holy Scriptures instruct
us (from The Message):
• "If you enter your place of worship and,
about to make an offering, you suddenly remember
a grudge a friend has against you,
abandon your offering, leave immediately,
go to this friend and make things right.
Then and only then, come back and work
things out with God" (Matthew 5:23-24).
• "If a fellow believer hurts you, go and tell
him—work it out between the two of you.
If he listens, you have made a friend. If he
won’t listen, take one or two others along
so that the presence of witnesses will keep
things honest, and try again. If he still
won’t listen, tell the church. If he won’t
listen to the church, you’ll have to start
over from scratch, confront him with the
need for repentance, and offer again God’s
forgiving love" (Matthew 18:15-17).
• "If someone falls into sin, forgivingly
restore him, saving your critical comments
for yourself. You might be needing forgiveness
before the day’s out. Stoop down and
reach out to those who are oppressed.
Share their burdens, and so complete
Christ’s law" (Galatians 5:1-2).
The spirit of the New Testament in dealing
with issues of offense and failure and sin is
reflected in these words of Paul to the Galatians:
"If someone is caught in a sin (in any
trespass, NASB), you who are spiritual should
restore him (literally, mend him, restore
him to good condition, attune him) gently,
meekly. But watch yourself, or you also may
be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens and
in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ"
(6:1-4). From these words, we see that our
actions are to be redemptive and restorative

The spirit of the New
Covenant, however,
declares that "love covers
over a multitude of sins"

in nature and are to be exercised with gentleness
and meekness of spirit. This is what Paul
calls "the law of Christ."
The spirit of New Testament dealings is exemplified
in how Jesus dealt with the woman
taken in adultery (John 8:1-11). The Pharisees
"made her stand before the group" (John 8:3);
they were into public accusation. The spirit
of the New Covenant, however, declares that
"love covers over a multitude of sins" (1 Peter
4:8, NIV). Love covers over a multitude of
sins with the blood of Jesus (which satisfies
the justice and righteousness of God and extends
the redeeming mercy and transforming
grace of God to those in need). The Pharisees
were also into an unholy harshness: "In the
law Moses commanded us to stone such
women" (John 8:5). Jesus, on the contrary,
freely loved the woman, forgave her, protected
her, released her and empowered her
by His grace to walk in holiness: "Neither do
I condemn you … Go now and leave (a Greek
imperative) your life of sin" (John 8:11). This
way of dealing with offense and sin is called
"the law of Christ" by Paul in Galatians 6:2.
And this becomes for us the spirit in which
New Testament Church dealings are to be
carried out.
God desires His people to be a redemptive,
restorative, healing community. Amen!

Dear Mr or Mrs Pastor

2008-02-11T12:09:00.001Z

I know you read your bible and teach that your life and ministry are based ONLY on the written word of God and that your 'ministry' is GOD given and not based on culture or any other philosophy of man or other social construction and your conscience is so clear and...... . BUT why do YOU not then DO what the His word states so clearly.

The new covenant is based on big ideas such as 'ALL my people shall KNOW ME' and plus the other idea of the 'PRIESTHOOD of ALL Believers' and maybe also the Pauline idea that there is 'neither male nor female' or any other social divisions to be used as the basis of non /service in the community of the King and that leads me to also add on the idea of 'community' and 'non authoritarian shared leadership' and maybe the idea that 'women and men are equal' before Him and maybe that 'children are part of the body' as well as the adults and possibly that there is a 'Holy Spirit that can change people' and that all the programs and nice social pastimes are nice but not His work? YES they do give an impression of life but they are but entertainment and KEEP the people from feeding on the bread of life JESUS.

Why in the light of established NT scholarship and academic knowledge concerning these and many other ideas of the early ecclesia- why do you feel that you are necessary and that 'your preaching/ teaching' as the 'man of God' is the 'word of God' for the 'people of God'. I must confess that I have met some of your 'congregation' yes 'YOURS' and they are spiritually a bit dim but I excuse them easily as they are a people living within a stone's throw of God's abundance but you let them have just the droppings from 'YOUR table', I also would be 'spiritually dim' under those circumstances.

Why? are you afraid of the saints that sit on your pews Sunday after Sunday who look anxiously to you for God's (YOUR) titbits. Would you not be better to let them loose and let the Spirit that inhabits them lead them to the Jesus we all desire. BUT how can you trust the Spirit to do this when you and only YOU know the way, YOU who have become 'the mediator of God's grace'. YOU are the final authority! not the Father nor the Spirit nor Jesus nor the scriptures.

Dear Pastor, I encourage you to get into real peer level relationship with those who love you and begin to live an accountable open and honest life before HIM and them.

I know that sounds so dangerous BUT living in a wheelchair may be fun for a day but hardly what you desire for life- let God take you and your fellow believers out of the wheelchair of fear and bring you stumbling into HIS life of freedom and honesty.

Consumerist Ministry

2008-01-12T10:15:00.000Z

Just a few thoughts on the modern concept of ‘minis’try'’. Ministry is now seen in career terms- a job, work- capitalism. You have to make your name known and get out there and do it for money. It evokes that hidden inner self that seeks its own rather than the good of others. However sometimes its cloaked in body language. Its easy to spot this malformed child of christendom however as the ‘ministry / minister’ is central and often ‘protected’ against outside influences. This core or centre is then made untouchable to the body and only open to words from the LORD Himself. In this context the use of terms like ‘God told me’, ‘God led me’, Jesus spoke to me’ and etc are common thus moving the ‘ministry’ away from common relational accountability. The ministry is then sanctioned by God and if you dare to speak into it you are questioning God Himself not the person or persons involved. This type of ministry is really anti the body and anti accountability.The career pastor (career musician etc,.) is one core example of a ministry in these terms, he(or she) becomes the man of God ( or woman of God) who hears from God for the people to bless the people. They then use the bible or their gifting to compel people into a submission to their views and use ‘God terms’ to sell their views. The success of the pastor (musician) is often seen by the ‘people’ as signs of their own personal success. So a lot of effort is put into making his (or her) ‘minis-’try’-’ a success. You hear sayings as follows- ‘My pastor believes, ‘my pastor says’, ‘my pastor is a man of God ( woman of God) etc,. These and other terms are all carried forward by the ‘people’ and seen as a great measure of ‘faithfullness’ and ’spirituality’. To question the views of the ‘man (woman) of God is seen as tantamount to ’sin’.
Its a fact that those who depart from the local church to promote their ‘ministry’ often use and abuse the ‘anointings’ of the local body to gain respect and give the appearance of spirituality. They mis-approriate these anointings and use them for self promotion. In the process they isolate themselves from the very body that bore them and gave them the context for having any ’service’ toward God at all. The church is afflicted with ‘man (woman) centred ‘ministries’ - out of (God) control and footloose and fancy free. They rush around hearing words of confirmation from ‘God’ as they have lost the relational accountability that speaks from the bodythat would confirm their ‘ministry’ . They hear words BUT mostly from ’strangers’ who have no covenant relationship with them that would necessiate any form of honest brokerage concerning their lifestyle. Why would any one confront the person who is ‘blessing’ them?
Do you know anyone that fits the bill??????????

1 0f ? Control Freaking leaders- Spiritual unity or the 'unity of the leader'

2007-09-10T14:52:00.000+01:00

When we look around us and see so many types/ shapes/ forms of church, we have to ask do they in some way relate to Jesus and the early christian communities. It is difficult to read the NT scriptures and see any similarities between the new covenant communities at that early time and the non communal mega / pastor controlled churches of these days where people gather to watch some preacher perform some magic. Am I saying that all 'pastors' are control freaks? Yes certainly when they have the knowledge that we live in a mutuality of community and continue to exercise 'control' over the life of the believer.

In the NT we had some distinctiveness's I think such as Jesus as pastor and a community gathered around a relationship with HIM the messiah. Jesus was the important man in the early days- they used to quote Him for a solution. Now we quote them instead.- them being our pastors/s. Oh! don't upset the Pastor whatever you do- they know best, they are special.
Anyway-
People usually in families where relating together as fellows in the river of belief in Jesus and as partners in His kingdom. Besides the cultural ideas of family and youth the body of believers was a consensus seeking group who looked to Jesus for His revelations and His soon return. Neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, bond nor free- they stood as a unified but diverse community in HIM. The leaders as such were persuaders who were part of the body not 'Lording it over the body'. It is hard today to understand the scripture in 1 Corinthians that says ' when you gather together 'each one has a' .......... This verse alone demonstrates for us the egalitarian nature of the early church where each could contribute as a living cell in the body. The leaders were not as they are now, the filters through which revelation came, but overseers of the movement of the Spirit. Keep it flowing was there job. Overseer is such a beautiful word for the job that an older brother / sister did in the community.

Why do believers 'fellow believers' sit so quietly in a passive mode listening to the rantings of some demi-god who feels that he / she has some special relationship with God. The new life of God under the new covenant is 'each shall know the Lord'. The truth is that the 'control spirit' is strong in the church today. Why do you think that leaders fear when small groups get together and 'TALK' WOW! that is so dangerous- they might come up with some ideas of their own from the Spirit and break up the unity of the LEADER. Yes the unity of the 'leader' is all important these days, when control freaks run our churches and demonise any and all that break ranks with them.
'let my people go' says the Lord

YES Israel AGAIN Aug 2007

2007-09-06T20:11:00.000+01:00

Once again and via Prague despite my recent anti Prague statement!

This time 9 of us poor souls ran where Jesus walked, we not only ran but boy did we sweat as well. BUT it was fun at times. This time we rented apartments not hotel rooms- it was fantastic and a lot cheaper. A company called Holiday2000 what great apartments in Tel Aviv- about $150 a night for a two bedrooms ac with large dining area and 2 bath

COME on- that's good.

Jerusalem was also brill this time a 3 bedrooms apartment rental on Ramban St - 10 mins from Jaffe Gate. $150 per night for all of us. Rooms in Jerusalem Noam Bahral- a real nice gentleman indeed who let us stay on the whole of the next day for free as our flights were after midnight
http://www.roomsinjerusalem.com/
The heat- was awesome- but it is peaceful and the atmosphere at night is brilliant. The streets are full of people aparently enjoying themselves- no threat no agro at all

Yes I have been to Israel with denise

2007-08-05T11:42:00.001+01:00

It was wonderful indeed.

Yes I have been to Israel with denise since the last blog

2007-08-05T11:42:00.000+01:00

It was fun, we had such a great time together. Never go via Prague NEVER it takes tooooo long. You become suicidal as you wait and wait and then lo and behold no baggage tickets and a very unhelpful desk attendant. SUCH IGNORANCE. Anyway we got the baggge in the end.

Trip to Israel with my son - Ger Tel Aviv

2006-07-07T11:11:00.000+01:00

Yes 7 days in Israel in heat that you could easily die in. Thank God for air conditioning!
We left Ireland and got a cheap flight via Zurich with Swiss Air. However the wait in Zurich was nearly 8 hours far too long. Zurich is expensive as well. We went down town by train-23 francs wow! Looked for a cheap meal could not find one-all day prices are the same and dearer than the ones in Cork at night-ended up eating a sort of falafel with a coke-still expensive at 12 francs, I thought. We have a beer and this cost as well.

Well we headed to Tel Aviv and landed at 3am lovely time-they are 2 hours ahead of Ireland. We got a taxi to the centre cost 100shekels-about $20. Out little old hotel was called the Home Apartments. Just a short distance from the beach and all the goodies. Well we were shown into a little tiny room with a small double bed. You could not swing a mouse in it. I complained immediately and we were moved to a much larger room with 2 single beds and a nice kitchen and separate shower room-with a balcony. For $55 not bad I thought and free internet access in the foyer.

Next day we discovered we were just by the beach and it is a beautiful beach-wow! The water is tepid as well n one of these freeze your ass Irish sea stuff here. You could stay in all day and have a great time-except poor Ger was stung by a large jelly fish. Not too bad - a little antihistimine cream worked well.

The Israeli army were doing a parachute jump on the beach while we passed by. The beach has a good supply of toilets and restaurants as you walk as well. We walked the beach all the way to Old Jaffa and found some beautiful art galleries and craft shops. The area is all narrow streets and cobbled stones and quite stunning. Some artist have set up shop there. Ger managed to buy a one off design necklace for Emer that is really different. Of course he did this on the last day in a rush.....

Did I mention the heat-yes heat 35+ at least. Wear a hat and put on your cream and bring plenty water or you will perish very quickly. We found the people very friendly in the Galleries and no pressure to buy, which was nice and some offered us water to drink as well.

Eating is expensive here as is the beer and coffee.

That evening we went looking for art galleries in Tel Aviv. Our hotel was downtown near Ben Yehuda and near Dizzebgoff and was conveniently placed for sure. We found some lovely galleries and enjoyed looking but as for buying the same prices exist everywhere for art-expensive prices- and here was no exception.

However Ger managed to retrieve some Hebrew documents from a rubbish bin- they were old and from some Hebrew College. We did attempt to rip off some posters from billboards but failed out of fear.

Getting hungry we saw a local traditional kosher restaurant and settled in for a nice looking meal. Big salad starters followed by kosher meat-chicken. It was okay only.

We slept like babies that night and woke to the found of the early morning traffic and the infernal beeping that goes on permanently. The AC was so good - did I mention the heat- mmm I think I did- outside our window a wall of heat existed- not as bad as the dead sea for sure but still roasting hot.

We jumped well I got up Ger is a bit sluggish in the mornings- and we eventually got to the beach and did the swim thing-Ger got stung but not too bad. It was beautiful in the water-warm and wavy. mmmmmm

Wef course covered up with 35+ protection we are white people- seriously white- and we need protection or we burn up.

Later we found a flea antiquities market and bought some stuff. I got a Dylan poster and a Dylan bootleg and Ger bought a bottle opener-antique of course. It was fun.

Then we packed up- got a taxi to the central bus station-which is a long way from downtown. You can BUS 4 for 5 shekels however we took the taxi.

The bus station is huge a shopping mall and 7 floors high. Security is high as well with lots of searching going on to get in. Weettled for a minibus ride to Jerusalem- just a mere 30 shekels- remember we had paid a 100 shekels to come from the airport-15mins- now a all the way to Jerusalem for 30-its not fair is it. Taxi men think the can screw the world. You jump in to your Nesher bus and wait until it is full-about 9 and then off we went. It was a great journey and the views as we arrived into Jerusalem were spectacular, to say the least. Going UP to Jerusalem is worth it.

Well that was Tel Aviv the downtown is like any full of shops and stuff the beach is a classic beauty and old Jaffa is a cool tourist stop. We did not do the usual tourist stuff and I am sure there is plenty to see. On our last day we returned here and found the Port area which is being restored. It was cool we found a jazz club here but it ws closed. We thought of hanging til late but instead had a Burger King burger-I don't recommend it -it was as okay. We sat outside and drank a beer and watched the world go by.

Welcome to Looking Back

2006-06-23T16:49:00.000+01:00

Hi

Doug Heffernan here in Cork ireland. I must muse sometime with you.