An unmentioned sin

There are a fair few things we count as sinful. Some are scriptural, but some are borne just from the religiosity of a strict moral background and can be manifold. For instance, when I was a child my best friend came from a strict Baptist family. I got some playing cards to have a game of trump or ‘jacks change it’ and he expressed horror (with an intake of breath): “those are devil cards!!” He even assured me that they should be thrown on the fire, where they would ‘burn and go down to the devil’!

This may be an extreme example (and I can hear many Baptists protest that is is not standard doctrine), but when I became a Christian, one of the things I sought from God’s word was instruction on what exactly it might be that would offend my Lord in my life; how could I know if I was or wasn’t being obedient to his will? I think that’s only right and spiritually healthy. I read his word and if I find something that challenges me to ponder on my actions or attitudes, I prayerfully seek for wisdom and strength to change, and learn about how to maintain that change in my spirit. Should not all Christians do the same? As a new convert, I believed this would be the case for all believers. However, there is a lot of belief that comes from upbringing and tradition in lieu of biblical teaching. We even coin a term for it: ‘churchianity’, though this is usually reserved for other churches, not our own! The basis for the Great Reformation of the 16th century was an address to ‘the church’ that many practices and doctrines were not scriptural.

Unfortunately, as time has marched on, many more things have crept into Christianity from unscriptural sources; but of course, modern evangelicals say this refers to the older ‘denominations’, not the true evangelical churches! Are we exempt, those of us who can cast aspersions on the traditions of those ‘established’ churches that are now long in the tooth? Is it not possible for us to create our own patterns of thought and doctrine and be unaware of where they originated? We may be unable to view such things from the outside.

The new doctrine of prosperity is an ideal candidate for investigation. Why does it not seem to be something written about or taught in the past? Its very newness suggests it has not come from our 2000+ year old scriptures. For me, the answer is fairly simple: the pursuit of wealth is a sin! We can go right back to the 10 commandments to find the tenth one; “You shall not covet your neighbour’s house. You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.” (Ex.20:17) Now right away, those who preach the prosperity doctrine will point out that it is a prohibition on desiring the possessions of others, and maintain there is no sin in desiring those things that are duly and rightfully our own. The Hebrew word for covet is hamad. It means ‘to desire’ or ‘to take delight in’ and can be used both positively and negatively e.g. in Song of Songs, the woman takes ‘delight’ in sitting with her beloved; a very different meaning from the sense of ‘covet’. Therefore there has to be a degree of positivity/negativity in any such ‘desire’, and we must ask the question of ourselves which desire is good or bad, beneficial or sinful, or how much desire we may be allowed to have for things i.e. at what point does a desire go from good to bad? We could proffer a scale like from a simple wish for something better, like enough money to take your family on a nice holiday (which very few could decry), to a desire to own a private yacht and sail around the Mediterranean. Again, those who preach that God wishes for us all to prosper and abound in wealth would scratch their heads, wondering how any such desiring (or coveting) could be bad, and say that anything on this scale is fine if God has deemed that you should have it. Therefore they are making the claim that money is good, and loving money or seeking it is a noble pursuit. Unfortunately, I read the opposite throughout scripture – here are just some examples, where I have added my own emphasis since they are parts that are often overlooked in favour of other parts:

Whoever loves money never has enough;
whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income. (Eccles. 5:10)

———–

The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. (Luke 16:14)

———–

Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. (1Tim. 3:2-3)

———–

Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have… (Hebrews 13:5)

———–

These are the things you are to teach and insist on. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. (1Tim. 6:2-11)

———–

And even the words of our own Lord Jesus: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also…. No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” (Matt. 6:19-21, 24)

———–

He also went on to state that many who followed him only did so because of the feed that he gave them when he performed the ‘feeding of the five thousand’: Jesus answered, ‘”Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.” (John 6:26)

———–

But mark this: there will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God – having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people. (2Tim. 3:1-5) And Paul then goes on to describe ‘such people” –

They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women… (2Tim. 3:6)

So this ‘kind’? Who fits that bill? We all know of the preachers in the Western world, and now developing countries too, who seem to do nothing but seek donations to their ministry, and are so often accused of charlatanry, so much that almost any pastor who makes an appeal for finances for any reason can be tarred with the same brush. It IS prevalent, isn’t it? Only this week, I happened to see a program late at night on the BBC, just as I was about to go to bed. It was Reggie Yates in South Africa, and this episode was him following one of these multi-millionaire preachers, who had come from the townships, but had created and developed his ministry to mega proportions.

(I am not going to name this man as I am not prepared to make direct accusations at any individual, just as I saw an article listing the fortunes of many of these preachers, mainly in the US – I am addressing the doctrine, the attitude, the belief that I think is unbiblical.)

Reggie Yates came from a black pentecostal background, though not a believer, and he said that he just found it wrong that a ‘man of the cloth’ should be so wealthy. This preacher (or Prophet as he called himself) had a fleet of 30 luxury cars and admitted to spending as much as £100,000 on one shopping spree for clothing, with some suits costing £7000! Truly a man of the people, and very much loved for how he went into shops and met people and posed for photos with his ‘fans’, yet he did not like Reggie’s apparent ‘lack of respect’ for him and his ministry, with his probing questions (no mention of humility there!). A young woman who followed him was questioned by Reggie about why as a poor working class woman, she would want to listen to this man; she replied “I wouldn’t want to listen to someone who had not gotten anywhere!”

Right away, there’s the problem: she viewed him as someone successful, therefore, somehow ‘blessed’ by God and someone to look up to and follow. I follow my own pastor, even though I disagree with him on many things, not because he’s ‘successful’ but because he has the qualities I seek in a church leader: compassion, care, a listening ear, a tireless worker for his congregation! THOSE are the ways in which we, as biblical believers, should value people, NOT by how much money they make! Don’t we all do it? While I never wish for my children to be in debt or in financial worry, should I praise them for making plenty of money in their vocation, or for being better, rounded, faithful followers of Christ? Is money a blessing? Well, here’s an excellent article on that from the huffington post:

http://tinyurl.com/m8hb2yv

The writer does say he is playing with semantics (meanings of words), and that is what it comes down to. I received a good rejoinder on this after sharing it on Facebook: “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” (James 1:17)

BUT: Here’s the distinction: All these things we receive are gifts, as James says, but are they blessings? In verse 25 of the same chapter, he says “But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom and continues in it – not forgetting what they have heard but doing it – they will be blessed in what they do.”

The word for gift is dosis from the verb didomi (give). It is used when describing the gifts of grace God bestows on us, and in Jesus’ command “Freely you have received, freely give.” (Matt. 10:8) It always contains the very qualities we expect of a gift, which is given in love with no counting of the cost, nor is a reward nor recompense for anything. The word for blessed is makarios which is used in the Beatitudes mentioned in the quoted article. These beatitudes were a poetic form well known to the people of Jesus’ time, much like Japanese haiku are a recognised poetic form. In Greek literature, the word is used to denote qualities belonging to certain people: ‘blessed is/are…’ and very often used for the rich, those above the cares and worries of the ordinary people (hoi polloi). However, Jesus, by using this form, turns the conceptions of the time on their head and utters blessings upon the meek, the poor in spirit, the persecuted, etc. The hearers would have been stunned at him not pronouncing blessings to be monetary or pecuniary! Or to do with birth or providence:

As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, ‘Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.’ He replied, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.’ (Luke 11:27,28)

In fact, these blessings are present from Abraham right through to seven beatitudes found in Revelation e.g.

The righteous lead blameless lives;

blessed are their children after them. (Prov.20:7)

Blessed are those
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord will never count against them. (Psalm 32:1,2)

I looked up the 46 occurrences of makarios and not one of them relates to anything to do with money or such ‘blessings’. Money is a gift bestowed on us according to what the Lord wills, not a blessing for the faithful, or a reward for making him our Lord, or an entitlement for those of us who have signed up to God’s Country Club with incumbent benefits! As a gift then, it is bestowed in the same way as any other gift; one person may have the ability to speak fluently to a gathered assembly, another the gift of writing ability, able to put their thoughts succinctly to the pen. If someone is bestowed with wealth as a gift, that is God’s will. Note that I am not saying that some are destined to be poor while others have it all (‘the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly, and ordered their estate’ as the hymn says). No, that is another, more complex matter that involves politics and social policy.

As with any gift, though, God expects such to be used wisely. A preacher must not use their ‘gift of the gab’ to distract or beguile a congregation into false teaching, for instance. Many of Jesus’ parables involved servants and their given ‘talents’ or their service and how they should be used properly. Anyone given wealth must be prepared to see it used, and thus while not making individual judgements on rich people (it is a matter of conscience left to each individual to follow, as in Romans 14), I would exhort anyone with such ‘gifting’ to consider how much is really theirs to keep (or hoard, for want of a more apt word!). Hoarding more wealth for yourself than you really need has a word: greed!

My knowledge of scripture, as outlined here, will never allow me to fall into the trap of prosperity doctrine; it is false and evil, and a distraction from the true pursuit of his kingdom, which, in itself, will guarantee your needs: “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” (Matt. 6:33)

In the same way that I would be wary of listening to a pastor who displays a sinful life, like being given to infidelity to their marriage, or to drunkenness, or fits of wrath, so I also have grave reservations about the counsel of such a pastor who is greedy and has hoarded much and vast wealth for themselves, well beyond the needs of their families. It doesn’t take a calculator to work out that having various millions stored in a bank vault is beyond that.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. (Matt. 23:25)

Then he said to them, ‘Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.’ (Luke 12:15)

There is even significant warning for such: nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1Cor. 6:10)

Grace be with you.

P.S. Another blogger has addressed a very similar issue linked to this in the 21st century western church:

http://walterbright.org/2014/03/27/the-culture-of-pastoral-notoriety/

Advertisements

Spending what?

So there are promises that the costs of the floods here will be met? With what? I thought there wasn’t any money to go around! Funny how it can be found when needed… No, let’s rephrase that: Wanted! The Millennium Dome? London 2012? And has anyone seen Camp Bastion in Afghanistan? It’s a new city, with 5000 very expensive military vehicles!

So this money? To buy your votes?

Grace be with you.

Drink & drugs at venues!

Last night’s local news; a major incident was declared by our ambulance service at a large DJ concert, where about 100 young people were treated by paramedics for problems related to ‘drink and drugs’ with some being hospitalised. For me the question is why this happens: A night out for enjoying a concert becomes a medical emergency yet no traumatic incident or accident was to blame!

I can remember the change. In 1985 I went to Croke Park to see U2, with support bands throughout the day. The tickets (about £15!) stated that no alcohol was allowed in the grounds. We were all searched, and there was a skip at the entrance where everyone who had drink was made to dispose of it. One guy was being refused entry. He was being told “I don’t care that you have a ticket. That ticket tells you we can refuse you entry. You’re inebriated. You’re not getting in!”
Only soft drink on sale. The stalls were charging about £4 for a 2 litre bottle (normally then about 60p!) so extortion was present, and it was a hot day! But I managed to get right to the front for The Alarm playing ’68 Guns’ and it was a tight squeeze but amidst a joyful bouncing singing crowd of sober revellers. I heard REM for the first time and swear the lead singer came down into the crowd after their set and walked right past me. Michael Stipe was not a celebrity then, and it was before the celebrity cult had really taken off. Great day in the sun! Topped off with a U2 finale in their hometown; nothing like it! This was not my first live concert, but as good as any previous had been, if not better.

1986: Karen and I had just met. I invited her to go with me and my friends to Slane Castle to see Queen. I cannot recall how we were informed but no drink bottles or cans were allowed into the venue, since they could be used as missiles or weapons, but there was no ban on alcohol. The event was sponsored by Harp Lager! We saw guys walking in with 10 gallon plastic drums they’d emptied their beer into, so they had obviously prepared. We got a spot on the grass fairly near the front but couldn’t sit since it was a typical Irish wet day, so we stood in the rain as the support acts played. Chris Rea, The Bangles… finally Queen were on stage! Then all the people at the back decided they wanted to be at the front. My friend’s brother and I formed a barrier behind the women to stop people forcing through us but then this huge gorilla came CRASHING between us, knocking us flying. I managed to land a punch on his back and he reeled around, fists up, slurring something about killing me. He was so drunk that one right hook would’ve floored him, but right away the drunkard’s brother came between us, apologetic and telling him to shut up, shuffling him on through the crowd as I shouted at him to ‘tell him to behave’ or something like that. Then things got worse! We got spun around like a tornado had hit the field, and Karen and I lost our friends. Next thing I knew, she was kicking out around her, shouting “SOME PIG GROPED ME!”  One poor guy, who looked innocent and bewildered, was receiving most of her kicks. I realised the culprit had melted away so I grabbed her hand and headed backwards out of the storm, to a safe spot with air to breathe. Just then, about halfway through their second song, Freddie Mercury started shouting “whoa! Stop guys, STOP!.. Stop the music!” and the band went quiet. He continued, “there’s a lot of pushing and shoving going on down there! Cut it out!… If this doesn’t stop, we’re going home! I MEAN IT!” The crowd seemed to ease and soften, and at his command, everyone moved back. When he saw it was better, he just said “look after each other out there, OK? Hit it again, guys!” That man was a legend, and a showman!

1987: 3 days before we got married, Karen and I hiked down to Dublin for the U2 Joshua Tree tour, but this time, Karen just refused to enter the playing pitch and insisted we sit in the stands. I understood; concerts would never be the same again. At the U2 Pop Tour in Belfast, we managed to get ushered up onto the wheelchair stage when Karen took a sort of panic attack just seeing the crowd, even though I promised we’d stay at the back. Got the best view ever, so I told her to get panic attacks at more venues!! As we left, I noticed how the vast majority of the people were sober, with only a minority of staggering drunks, but I wondered, in that crowd, what problems had they caused?

The concert last night was attended by 9,500, so again, the 100 or so treated for ‘excessive alcohol’ or whatever it actually was, would seem to be a minority. Those who had turned up already under the influence were refused entry, so something to praise the organisers for there. They had hung around outside and thus caused the huge incident. Not to say there was zero trouble inside, but it was minor by comparison.

Why have we gone the way of allowing a small number of idiots, who cannot enjoy a great concert without the need to get totally wasted, to ruin our own enjoyment? I have fond memories of concerts pre-1986 yet really mixed memories after that. Is it corporate sponsorship by drinks companies? Have we really a new generation who approach this differently, or has it just always been the same? Is it government deregulation? Or promoters bowing to some ‘demographic’ that shows them that most people want to drink at these venues? All I know is I wish it would go back to the way it was!

Grace be with you!

NATION OF SODOMY!

A quick thought came to me that just had to be written down. We have a UKIP councillor (ex-UKIP now) who has blamed all the freak storms lashing our coasts as the judgement of God upon the UK for adopting same-sex marriage. Now I am loathe to make such declarations, for unless you know you have a specific call to be a prophet to a nation, it’s not your place to make such cries, in my humble opinion. Being prophetic in general, calling to God’s people about right and wrong and pointing out what our Lord is trying to say (being a voice) is fine and dandy; I suppose this is my platform for such proclamations!

A relevant case-in-point is the rise of AIDS in the 80s. Many started saying it was judgement upon the gay community, but this left proclaimers face down in the mud when it was pointed out that worldwide it was more of a heterosexual disease than it was in the developed west – so it was judgement upon all sexual sin and promiscuity, then! Ah, but God must not be so judgemental of lesbians then, since they were the least affected by HIV, due to the nature of its means of transmission. Add to that the drug injectors, haemophiliacs and innocent babies who caught it (particularly in Africa – I’ve seen the swathes of orphanages there; the result of so many parents gone AND with so many HIV-positive children) and you don’t seem to have a coherent argument about AIDS anymore. I try to avoid such sweeping gesticulations at a nation or a community.

But hold on, we all know that Sodom was judged, and judged severely by God. The word sodomy in English has come to be a byword for homosexual practices, since the account of Lot’s sojourn in Sodom in Genesis 19 makes it clear that homosexuality was rampant there. God had already stated his intention: “Then the Lord said, ‘The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me.'” (Gen. 18:20,21) So was this ‘outcry’ against the sexual immorality? What exactly was it that angered the Lord so much that he’d destroy them?

Ezekiel, the prophet who was called to prophesy to the nation of Judah, much later, gives us the single, most clear answer to that:

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezek. 16:49) Still wary of grand sweeping proclamations myself, I’ll ask one question: do we have a government in this country that cares about the poor and needy? Answers on a postcard not required!

In fact, Ezekiel is highlighting the sins of Jerusalem and God’s people within that city, and is using the sins of Sodom to state that they are nowhere near as bad as Jerusalem:

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.”

Grace be with you.