One model for the Kingdom of God suggests that the Kingdom of God existed once and will exist again when Christ returns, but in the meantime didn’t exist at all. The suggested dates for the former kingdom vary from either Moses or Saul, but typically end with the over throw of Judah.

In contrast, we would like to suggest the Kingdom of God has always existed and still exists today and that Davidic Kingdom was a unique “national” manifestation of the Kingdom of God on earth. When Christ returns, this national manifestation of the Kingdom of God will again be represented with Jesus ruling over the Promised Land from Jerusalem, but that his rule will also extend to the entire earth.

What evidence would we provide for such an assertion? Probably the most solid evidence of the continuing existence of God’s Kingdom is the plain Scriptural assertions to the everlasting nature of God’s Kingdom:

The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made. All your works praise you, Lord; your faithful people extol you. They tell of the glory of your kingdom and speak of your might, so that all people may know of your mighty acts and the glorious splendor of your kingdom. Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures through all generations. (Ps 145:10-13 NIV)

King Nebuchadnezzar, To the nations and peoples of every language, who live in all the earth: May you prosper greatly! It is my pleasure to tell you about the miraculous signs and wonders that the Most High God has performed for me. How great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an eternal kingdom; his dominion endures from generation to generation. (Da 4:1-3 NIV)

The Bibles tells us that God’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom which endures through all generations. While the Kingdom of Men has a distinct termination point and finite existence, by way of contrast, the Kingdom of God is eternal with no termination point.

In addition to this testimony, we have literally dozens of verses which attest to God as a King. It makes no sense to say God is a king “for ever and ever” if He has no kingdom.

He ruleth by his power for ever; his eyes behold the nations: let not the rebellious exalt themselves. (Ps. 66:7)

The LORD is King for ever and ever. (Ps. 10:16)

Ps 29:10 The LORD sitteth upon the flood; yea, the LORD sitteth King for ever.

But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation. (Jer. 10:10)

Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Tim. 1:17)

Certainly, this eternal Kingdom will enter a new phase when Jesus rules from Zion, but it is only a new manifestation of an eternal kingdom, not a new kingdom.

There are some verses which may lead to confusion that this is a new kingdom. One of these verses is found in Daniel 2:44, which reads:

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

The phrase “set up” doesn’t mean that something didn’t exist before, but fits perfectly with the idea of something entering a new phase or manifestation. For example, the same word translated “set up” in Daniel 2:44 is translated “rose up” in Ezra 5:2 concerning Zerubbabel.

Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them.

It doesn’t mean Zerubbabel didn’t exist before this moment. It means that Zerubbabel entered a new phase when he went from not building God’s house to building God’s house. In the same way, God’s kingdom “in the days of these kings” will rise up a new manifestation of itself in millennial age which will never be overturned and never have to contend with its rival kingdom, the Kingdom of Men, again.

The Kingdom of God may not be as self-evident today as it will be when Jesus returns to this earth to destroy the Kingdom of Men, but it shines brightly in those ambassadors who live by the spirit. “Even so, come Lord Jesus.”

Have a great week,

In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he tells the brethren,

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. (10:21 NIV)

This passage has been wrested to support the practice of the sin of Diotrephes (bloc disfellowship or daisy-chain fellowship). Is this a reasonable interpretation of this passage and does it offer support for this practice?

The brethren in Corinth were surrounded by paganism of the worst kind. On the nearby mountain lived shrine prostitutes who would ply their trade in the city at night. The city was wealthy and hedonistic. It was in this culture that the fledgling Corinthian church was thrust on a daily basis.

One of the more common issues that they had to deal with was the purchase of meat. It seems that the pagan temples also functioned as a pseudo-butcher’s shop. Animals would be sacrificed to the gods and then the meat from these animals would either be sold directly from the temple itself to congregants or be sold to vendors who would sell it in the marketplace. If you read between the lines, the temples seemed to have a monopoly on the business so that the choice was to be a vegetarian or eat this sacrificial meat. The early church went back and forth on the propriety of eating this meat.

In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul deals with this hot topic. This was a similar problem to what they were dealing with in the Roman church (see Rom. 14), but with one key difference; while the Romans were buying this meat in the marketplace, the brethren in Corinth were exercising their Christian liberty by “eating in an idol’s temple.”(8:10) The issue seems to be that this practice of eating meat is not in and of itself sinful. He acknowledges that an idol is nothing and there is only one God. Yet, he also goes on to say that the key issue here is that you may cause your weak brethren to stumble. The weak-in-faith person believes that idols are something and therefore cannot eat of the meat sacrificed in honor of the pagan gods. Paul concludes chapter 8 with a bit of hyperbole going so far as to say that if this causes his brethren to stumble not only will he avoid these circumstances, he will never eat meat again.

Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall. (v. 13)

This is the context in which we must frame chapter 10.

In chapter 10, Paul warns of the dangers of participation in these pagan services. There is an inherent danger in participating in these practices. He says “So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!” (v.12) and “Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.” (v. 14) Paul is saying, in effect, “don’t play with fire or you might get burned.” Even the brother who was strong in faith was in danger of failing prey to sin if he attended pagan services in order to get the meat.

Paul now deals directly with the breaking of bread and, not surprisingly, reiterates the one and only true position ever stated in the Scriptures that if you are part of the One Body, you are entitled (required!) to participate in the breaking of bread.

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf. (vvs. 16, 17 NIV)

Now comes the part of this chapter which has caused many people to erroneously think that the Bible condones the sin of Diotrephes. Paul says,

No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. (vvs. 20, 12 NIV)

Now we have to ask ourselves, what solution to this problem is Paul looking for here? Let’s give the two options.

Option #1 – Paul is asking the brethren to practice the sin of Diotrephes. He is suggesting that because brethren are eating this meat sacrificed to idols in these temples they should be put out of fellowship at the Lord’s table.

Option #2 – Paul is suggesting that these brethren not exercise their Christian liberty in such a way that causes other people to stumble and therefore stop attending these pagan services.

The answer is obvious to anyone who wants to see the truth. Paul is suggesting option #2, not option #1. As he goes on from here to say, the issue is not protecting the Lord’s table from contaminated individuals who are also eating in idol’s temples, the issue is exercising Christian liberty to the hurt of others.

“I have the right to do anything,” you say-but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”-but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. (vvs. 23,24 NIV)

Paul even reiterates that if you are eating this meat bought in the marketplace, this is OK unless you are causing someone else to stumble, but he still doesn’t want them to participate in the pagan services.

The truth is that when ecclesias practice the sin of Diotrephes, they are sinning, not “protecting the truth.” They are directly defying the command to recognize the One Body. Furthermore, the argument that someone who is part of the One Body but should be cut off on the basis that they share the “cup of demons (i.e. “fellowshipping error”) is wresting the meaning of 1 Corinthians 10. In addition, to equate “the cup of demons” (participating in a pagan ceremony with shrine prostitutes) with any issues within the brotherhood today is taking absurd expositional liberties with the text.

We conclude as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 10.

Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. (v. 31)

Have a great week,

What is appropriate dress for meeting? Some will argue that a more casual dress is appropriate while others would argue that it is important to wear your best. Who is right?

The brethren who argue for more formal dress often pull out a couple of rhetorical questions. One question is “if you were meeting the President, wouldn’t you wear your best? How much more should we be concerned with our dress if we are coming before God?” My own answer to this is that I would try to dress appropriate to the circumstances. For example, if I were asked to have a formal state dinner with the President, I would wear a tuxedo. Does this mean I should wear a tux to meeting? If I were asked to play golf with the President, I would wear golf clothes. Should I wear golf clothes to meeting? I would look kind of silly if Barack and Michelle invited me to go swimming and I showed up in a Brooks Brothers suit.

If we ignore all cultural norms and just go with Biblical precedent, a case can be made that in coming before God, we should definitely be barefoot. The priests wore no shoes while serving in the temple or tabernacle. Also, several other non-priests were asked to remove their shoes when they stood on holy ground. Should we be barefoot at meeting? We could also debate what types of robes should we wear? A linen ephod? How about a toga?

The point is that dress is circumstantial and varied. This is, in my opinion, the answer to this perennial question. There are times when dressing up would be out of place and times when being casual would be inappropriate. Let us demonstrate.

I have been to very poor developing countries and preached to people quite literally living in shanties. As we asked these people to come to Sunday services knowing they would arrive in rags, would it be fitting for me to dress in my best suit? Certainly not. It would make these unfortunate people feel bad and out of place. It would create an even wider gulf between us. On the other end of the spectrum, I have visited conservative meetings knowing that they have an expectation of a certain dress code. Would it be appropriate for me to show up in jeans and a t-shirt knowing it would disrupt the service? Absolutely not. Coming together to worship in both cases has little to do with dress and everything to do with your spirit. We should dress appropriate for the circumstances which will vary and do our best not to let our dress detract from the purpose of our gathering. I don’t think God cares nearly as much about what is on the outside of us as He does with what is on the inside of us. If we are honestly trying to dress in a way that brings honor and glory to Him, this is the most important thing.

There is a brother that bears mentioning here named Tim Genders, an English brother living in South Africa. Tim, who is white, has been very instrumental in the creation of a new ecclesia in a black township called Mariannhill. If you know anything about South Africa’s history of apartheid, you know that this is remarkable (as is the whole story of the preaching going on in South Africa). One Sunday I was going to meeting in Marianhill with Tim and he was wearing these wild, colorful patchwork shorts. These were the wildest shorts I had ever seen. If Tim had shown up in these shorts at most ecclesias in his native England on a Sunday, they would have probably called the mental health services to have him picked up. These shorts, however, were a handmade gift lovingly prepared for Tim by the brethren in Marianhill. They were Zulu pants given as a sign of honor and respect. While it might have been wildly inappropriate for Tim to wear these shorts in certain situations, it was absolutely the right call for Tim to wear them to Mariannhill. Tim was bringing honor and glory to God while wearing these colorful Zulu shorts to meeting.

On the other end of the spectrum, I am told of a visiting missionary in Africa who believed it was important for men to wear ties to Sunday services. In order to encourage this practice, this brother brought a batch of ties with him. Unfortunately, since none of locals had anything but t-shirts to their name, they had to tie these neckties directly around their necks above their t-shirts. The mental picture I have of these locals parading around with neckties tied around their bare necks makes me laugh, but it is also sad to think that someone was shortsighted enough to insist on this in the first place.

So what is appropriate dress for Sunday? I think Paul said it best.

I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Cor. 9:22-23 NIV)

Have a great week,

A few weeks ago, I wrote briefly about a man named Diotrephes. More than a few people didn’t know much about him, so I thought it might be a good idea to offer a little more in-depth analysis on this man and his sin.

The full account of Diotrephes occurs in a few short verses in 3 John 9-10. It reads,

I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church. (NIV)

From this concise passage, we know a few things about this brother. First, he was prideful. He wanted to be first or have preeminence among his brethren. He thought he was too holy or a notch above his fellow-believers. We don’t know why he felt this way; perhaps he was rich or influential or maybe he was very smart. All we know is that that this man thought himself better than everyone around him. The term we might use today is “holier than thou” or self-righteous.

Diotrephes would not welcome John. Imagine this! This man thought so much of himself that he thought he was too good to be around the Apostle “whom Jesus loved.” Talk about arrogant.

Diotrephes was a slanderer. He spread lies about John. How else was he to combat a man of John’s character and stature among the brethren if he didn’t impugn his character with lies?

Diotrephes practiced what has come to be known as bloc disfellowship or daisy-chain fellowship. If brethren were not on his side in his dispute, he would not welcome them into fellowship. No doubt he used a clever tactic like claiming they were “fellowshipping error” or must also be engaged in some sort of sin to be in contact with the likes of a sinner such as the Apostle John. When brethren in his ecclesia tried to circumvent Diotrephes and welcomed these fellow believers, Diotrephes had them disfellowshipped (probably under the guise of contamination by association). Brethren in his ecclesia found it difficult to stand up to Diotrephes and capitulated to his evil demands because to oppose him was to face excommunication.

It stands to reason that Diotrephes, for all of his condemnation in 3 John, was not an open and shut case. What I mean is that Diotrephes obviously has enough trappings of Christian life and doctrine to confuse enough of his ecclesia into thinking he is right. The exhortation falls flat if we miss this vital point and pass Diotrephes off as a monster and his ecclesia as a bunch of thoughtless morons. It seems fairly obvious with brethren there such as Gaius and Demetrius that this was a normal ecclesia with otherwise good brethren with a profound problem – a respected elder had gone astray and was teaching and practicing a plausible false doctrine. Once we recognize this important point, we begin to see the relevance to our day. If we are looking for caricatures of bad men with black hats and Hitler mustaches in order to pin down this sin, we’ll never see it even as parades in front of our faces. No, this sin is being practiced by otherwise healthy ecclesias and other good brethren who have been misled by a few.

I will even go so far as to partially defend Diotrephes with the benefit of the doubt. Let’s suppose for a moment that Diotrephes was 100% sincere in his beliefs. Let’s also suppose that his slander was based on inaccurate, second-hand information he obtained about John and was sincerely trying to defend against what he perceived to be an attack upon the truth. Because he was prideful, perhaps he thought he was the only man capable of defending against someone as powerful and respected as the Apostle and somewhat reluctantly took up this mission to “save” his ecclesia. Do you see how when we give this man the benefit of the doubt that the exhortation becomes that much more powerful? These were real brethren who had been taught the truth from people who had met Jesus! These were not fools but a good ecclesia with good brethren. If they could be fooled into buying into the sin of Diotrephes, are arrogant enough to think that we are immune?

Some people took issue to my previous Thought for the Week because I drew a parallel to the bloc disfellowship practices of today. We have brethren today who acknowledge other people as brethren in Christ but won’t welcome them around the table. They also won’t welcome those who around the table who do welcome those brethren. If we don’t see there isn’t a one for one connection between the fellowship practices of Diotrephes and of some today, we just don’t want to see it.

So what do we do about it? I would suggest it is exactly as I am doing and as the Apostle John did nearly 2,000 years ago. John’s solution was simple: “I will call attention to what he is doing.” The solution is to educate and rebuke. Tell people who may be ignorant about the sin of Diotrephes and rebuke those engaged in it privately as well as publicly.

We don’t know how this story resolved itself 2,000 years ago. Did Diotrephes overcome his pride and desire for preeminence and repent of his daisy-chain, bloc fellowship practices? Did he continue on his path and await an even harsher rebuke from Jesus than the one John delivered? We just don’t know. What we do know is that we “make the answer now” for ourselves! What is our answer going to be?

Have a great week,

Being a disciple of Christ is difficult on many levels. It is not the heavy burden that he has placed on us that is difficult. The burden is light. The difficulty lies in human nature. We tend to get ourselves off track in various ways. One of the easiest ways to get off track is our inability to see the big picture. What does God want from us? What things are important and what things are unimportant? What things are from men and what things are from God? Israel had this problem throughout their history and it manifested itself in many ways.

With this problem in mind, it behooves us from time to time to step back and take a look at the big picture. To do this I would like to introduce you to an interesting Greek word. This Greek word is sunodia (pronounced soon-od-ee’-ah). It means “partners on a journey.” The word only occurs once in the Bible in an unremarkable way. When Jesus’ parents left Jerusalem when he was twelve, it says,

but supposing him to be in the group (sunodia) they went a day’s journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances. (Luke 2:44 ESV)

The reason I like this Greek word is that I think it is very expressive of a life/religious philosophy. We are all on a spiritual journey together towards God’s Kingdom. We are partners on this journey. All of us have some flaws – some things that slow us down or hinder our progress. Some of these problems are large while others are quite small. The point is, though, we each have a responsibility to help one another out. We must learn that we are interdependent on each other and that our goal is not to just get ourselves to our destination, but to help others as well.

The Apostle Paul wrote:

Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal. 6:2 NIV)

Paul’s metaphor links to the idea of sunodia. Where does Paul expect us to carrying each other’s burdens if not on our journey to the Kingdom?

In order to follow this philosophy, we have to make a conscience effort to join in the travels with other people. There is oft quoted verse in Amos which also factors into this Biblical theme.

Can two walk together, except they be agreed? (3:3)

This verse clearly means “can two walk together except they agree to walk together?” In other words, we have to make a conscious effort to walk together.

While we may surmise that we can travel faster and with fewer encumbrances toward the Kingdom on our own, nothing could be further from the truth. One of the great beauties of Christianity is that selfishness is self-defeating. Think about it, if we focus entirely on saving ourselves, we are missing one of the primary attributes of discipleship which is self-sacrifice. The only way I can save myself (so to speak) is to focus on saving you and vice versa. If I become self-absorbed with my own salvation, in effect, I end up working contrary to that goal. It is only by mimicking the agape’ love of Jesus which manifests itself in serving others that we move closer to the Kingdom of God. By serving you, I serve Christ and ultimately am serving myself as well.

To walk together to the Kingdom is to also walk with God. Notice the phrasing of Micah 6:8:

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

We are to walk with God. God goes with us on this journey. As Ps. 23 tells us, He is with us even in the valley of the shadow of death. Again, it is in a context of acting justly and loving mercy. In a manner of speaking, if we refuse to walk with each other in justice and mercy (which are impossible to practice alone), we are refusing to walk with God. Christianity is not a solo sport. It is not the intent of the Messiah for us to practice our faith in a cave of solitude. We must practice our faith in the act of helping one another.

We often say that “walk” is a Bible symbol for moral behavior. This is true. Yet, it is not the whole truth. To “walk in the light” is also to help your fellowman through life. Notice how John puts it.

But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them. (1 John 2:11)

Walk includes walking with our fellow travel companions. When we dismiss their needs – whether they be physical or spiritual – we are walking in darkness.

We need to step back and see this big picture that we are all on a journey together. We are all in different places along the path and need to take this into account in our service one to another. The object is not to judge one another’s progress as much as it is to assist our fellow sunodias.

As God has said: ‘I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.’ (2 Cor. 6:16 NIV)

Have a great week,

Every child in the US is taught the fact that Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492. Only problem with this fact is that it isn’t precisely true.

Is it just me or is it kind of absurd to say that Columbus “discovered” America? It was already full of people. Scholars say that aboriginal peoples numbered in the millions when Columbus arrived. My wife and I went to Australia a couple of years ago. Would you think the Aussies might have been a bit confused had I waltzed into Sydney Harbor, planted a flag and claimed I’d discovered it? Just call me Kyle – Discoverer of Australia. I want a statue in Sydney Harbor next to the opera house I discovered. Get right on that, would you?

We can be a bit imprecise in the way we use language. This is not true at all with God. Notice the Bible’s testimony of the precision with which God uses language.

As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD’s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him. (2 Samuel 22:31 NIV)

And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times. (Psalm 12:6 NIV)

As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD’s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him. (Psalm 18:30 NIV)

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. (Proverbs 30:5 NIV)

Call it a hunch, but something tells me that God wants us to know that His language is precise and doesn’t need adjusting.

When I was young, it bothered me the way that God wrote the Bible. Sometimes the story line was a bit confusing. In some places, what seemed to me to be inconsequential facts such as genealogies or numbers of sheep were repeated while other seemingly vital facts were entirely left out. I wasn’t crazy about some of the words God used either. He used words that were confusing. There are many words such daimonian (demons) and diabolos (devil) that I would have preferred a different word. Why risk confusing people, right?

What I have discovered is that if we are uncomfortable with the way that God phrased things, the problem lies with us. Words like daimonian and diabolos make so much sense to me now. In fact, I would say they are the “perfect” word.

Men have been willing to tamper with God’s flawless text. One of the better examples is found in 1 John 5:7,8:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

This passage, known as Comma Johanneum, is found in no texts prior to the sixteenth century. It was then that this extra language was inserted. Even in the earliest texts in which it is found, it is in a marginal note. Why would someone insert this passage so late into the Bible? The answer seems obvious enough. It supports the Trinity. As such, it becomes very convenient to point to as Biblical “evidence” of this doctrine.

Changing the text is warned against in the final chapter of the Bible.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev. 22:18-19)

We need to be careful when we don’t like or don’t appreciate the original expression so that we don’t fall into the trap of changing the words of the Bible. For example, there was a movement a few years ago where brethren would read a verse that had the Greek word pneuma (spirit) and insert another Greek word, logos (word,) into the verse. For instance, they would take Gal. 5:18 which says “But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law” and make it read “But if ye be led of the Spirit (word), ye are not under the law.” This practice never seemed legitimate to me. If God wanted to say “pneuma logos” He would have said “pneuma logos.” This is not to say that you can’t interpret a verse in this manner, it is simply saying it is not legitimate to randomly insert words into God’s flawless text.

The Bible is a book on which we can base our lives, so we need to be careful how we treat it. One of the great benefits of God’s flawless word is that it works in us to move us toward flawlessness.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

May God help us on that journey toward flawlessness.

Have a great week,

There is a lot more to say on issues that we can reform, but I think in this case “less is more.” Let me end this series with the question: How do we start a reformation?

In the Bible, there were several triggers to reformations. Let’s look at them and see how they might relate to us.

1. God punished them. Probably the most frequent catalyst for reformation in the Bible was God getting totally disgusted with His people and proverbially kicking them in the gut to help them see the error of their ways. God would send the Assyrians, Syrians, Babylonians, Philistines, famine, pestilence and so forth to make the Israelites wake up. There are two problems with this as it relates to us. The first problem is that the timing is entirely in His hands. The second problem is that He shouldn’t be “forced” to do it. Obviously, God is not forced to do anything, but if He loves us and corrects those He loves and we won’t correct ourselves, the outcome is inevitable. We should be better at self-examination and self-correction than to require God to take this radical measure.

2. God raised up a leader. One of the key ways God reformed His people was by raising up an authoritative figure. Hezekiah and Josiah reformed Judah with the power of the throne behind them. Prophets such as Jeremiah, Joel and Haggai brought their messages to the people. The problem here is similar to the problem in the first reformation trigger – it is God-induced. We don’t have any earthly authoritative religious figure to lead us like a high priest or king nor do we have any present day prophets. Our leaders are our elders who are instructed to lead by serving, not as one in authority.

3. Self-induced reformation: There are plenty of examples of individual self-reformation without a catalyst other than the individual’s conscience or an increase in their understanding. There are other extra-Biblical instances where nations reform but this usually involves a lot of chaos and bloodshed in the process. Biblical examples of self-induced national reformations without either a major trial or a raised-up leader are non-existent. The closest example is possibly Ninevah’s reformation under the threat of trial by the prophet Jonah. Even then, though, they had a reluctant leader (Jonah) and the threat of a severe trial. Seldom do people en masse just decide that there has to be a better way. Inertia is too powerful a force to overcome in most cases without an even more powerful catalyst.

With that said, we may be in the midst of this in a subtle form of God-induced reformation as we speak. Have you noticed how many really high profile brothers have fallen in the past few years? Some of these instances are well known and some others are not so well known, but the instances of this are remarkable. Are we seeing a wake-up call from God akin to Ezekiel 34?

‘Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, because my flock lacks a shepherd and so has been plundered and has become food for all the wild animals, and because my shepherds did not search for my flock but cared for themselves rather than for my flock, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them.(Ezek. 34:7-10 NIV)

Furthermore, the Christadelphian body has been, for lack of a better term, a magazine-centered religion for almost the entirety of our existence. It would be interesting to see if we have not set some Guinness Book of World Records achievement for the smallest religious body with the largest number of magazines. These magazines have played a powerful and dramatic role in the shaping of our history. The editors make up the Who’s Who of historically significant Christadelphians. Yet today, for the first time in our history, this is no longer the case. Very few people read the magazines any longer if they subscribe to them at all. It is difficult to think of the names of the editors. Secular magazines and newspapers are facing similar challenges in a new era when people get their information instantaneously via the internet, cell phone apps, TV, Twitter and Facebook. While this shift might be interesting for other religious bodies, it is seismic for the Christadelphians and has created a void that has yet to be filled. It is possible that God is giving us an opportunity to reform in the midst of these changes?

There has also been a slight, almost imperceptible change in the leadership model that has come to my attention in the last few years. In the past, we have been led by strong, high profile brothers whose main claim to fame was as Bible students, writers and exhorters. It seems to me the new leaders we are producing are still strong Bible students, but this new crop of leaders are known more for what they do on the other side of the platform than for what they do behind one. These new leaders are known for their preaching and service-oriented work. I believe this is a good thing as long as we don’t let the pendulum swing away from Bible study (which to date, I have seen no indication). Is God raising up shepherds who can lead a reformation by example rather than words?

The key question before us then is how do we reform without the necessity of God serving us with a major trial which brings us to our knees? I believe that the answer is that it starts single person – you. First, we become reformed and then we are able to help reform. If you and I participate in the reform, that makes two reformed. By our example, others will follow suit. We all need to do our part.

Have a great week,

Another area where I believe we need to reform is in the practice of judging other people. The Bible appears to the untrained eye to send a mixed message on the subject of judging and has confused many. On the one hand it says things like “judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt. 7:1) and on the other hand, verses like “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” (1 Cor. 5:12 NIV) This has led some to believe we cannot judge anyone for anything and others to judge things such as other people’s hearts and even salvation. The bottom-line is that there are things we should judge such as behavior and things that we should not judge such as salvation, someone’s heart or intent.

The Scripture is very clear that God and Christ alone have the right to judge someone’s salvation.

Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. (Rom. 14:4 NIV)

Yet, despite this, you often hear us say something like “well, we all know the (fill in the denomination) won’t be in the Kingdom.” We also say things like “if you believe (fill in the doctrine), you won’t be in the Kingdom.” Both of the above statements might be true. They also might not be true. What we know to be true, however, is we have never been given the authority to judge another man’s servant so we need to stop doing so. It isn’t our job. Our job is to help people toward the Kingdom, not make a call on their life (or lack thereof) in the Kingdom Age.

Now, my experience is that as soon as you say something like this, someone says “well, you are just saying that everyone is going to be in the Kingdom” or “anything goes.” Far from it. Let me give you my analogy of how we are supposed to operate in this conundrum.

Let’s say we had a three glasses containing varying amounts of rat poison in front of us. In one is one single drop of poison. In another, there is a thimble full of poison. The last is full to the brim with poison. It stands to reason that the more poison we drink, the greater the chance that we will die. However, unless someone is an expert in that poison, it is pure speculation on the part of us to guess whether one or more of those glasses of poison will result in death. What we do know is that we don’t want anyone drinking that poison including ourselves. There is a real and present danger in drinking it and a loving person is going to warn everyone they can that there is poison in that glass.

Let’s say false doctrine and immorality are like that poison. It seems to me we spend way too much time speculating how much poison will kill us rather than spending our time in poison eradication. We are missing the point. It is appropriate to go people and share the Good News of the Kingdom of God. It is appropriate to lovingly and humbly point out immorality to our friends as well. Any loving person will do so if our intent is to aid as many people toward the Kingdom of God as possible. Where we cross the line is when we start saying, “you won’t be in the Kingdom.” This person might be full of false belief and immorality, but it still is not our job to judge their salvation, only to help them eradicate the poison.

There are cases in the Bible where it states that certain people will not inherit the Kingdom of God. For example, it says in 1 Cor. 6:9,10:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

While we might use this verse to warn people engaged in this behavior of the seriousness of their error, we also know that some who have engaged in such behavior (such as King David) will be there. Even in these extreme, seemingly cut-and-dry cases, we need to avoid speculation and not judge this person’s salvation. God’s forgiveness for the repentant is amazing.

Of course, the danger of the practice of judging someone else’s salvation is that we are told,

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (Matt. 7:1,2 NIV)

If we take this verse literally, by judging other people’s salvation, the same will be done to us.

Just so we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, this same chapter a few verses later give us permission to judge people’s actions, behavior and speech. It says “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.” (vs. 15, 16) We have much confusion over the matter of forgiveness, ecclesial discipline and repentance. It is neither kind nor loving to allow people to sin. If the Kingdom is truly our goal, we will try to help each other overcome sin. Sometimes this demands that we rebuke brethren in the right spirit. We have written much on this topic including a series on Matthew 18, forgiveness, differing approaches for the wayward and repentance which you can find in the TFTW archives at http://wcfoundation.org/tftw_blog/.

Have a great week,

Once upon a time, there was a family that lived far away from any town. They had always heard about the famous horse race, the Kentucky Derby, but had never seen it. As a matter of fact, they had never seen a real horse. One day they happened upon a carousel in an amusement park and saw how the horses went around in circles and concluded this must be the Kentucky Derby. They went home and for generations they would pass on this information about how horseracing worked. They argued about which horses were faster – purple or green. They argued about which material made the best pole for horse racing. The family even split over an argument about which material made better horses – plastic or aluminum.

We’re a lot like that family when it comes to the breaking of bread. What we do on Sunday morning bears little resemblance to what they did on Saturday night in the first century, but despite this disconnect, we still argue about this simple but profound ceremony as if what we were doing was a carbon copy.

If we are able to resurrect a brother in Christ from about 45AD and bring them to one of our meetings, they would have a very hard time connecting what we do on Sunday mornings to what they did in the first century. They met together on Saturday evenings after the end of the Sabbath (by Jewish reckoning, the first day of the week) and had a communal meal. This assembly was very similar to the last meal Jesus had with his disciples which we commonly call The Last Supper. In fact, the assembly probably more closely resembled our potlucks than our Sunday morning meetings. People ate, drank and talked to one another. At some point, it is not clear when, they would take a sip of the wine they were already drinking in remembrance of Jesus and take a bite of the bread they were already eating in the same manner. Although this one communal act of remembrance may have been reserved for the baptized believers, they were nevertheless sharing this meal with all the potential converts and children assembled. Although this practice became corrupt over time (see Paul’s first letter to Corinth, for example), at this time it was still a “love feast” shared by all. Add to this his befuddlement if we insisted that he understood a statement of faith. They didn’t even have statements of faith at this time and certainly not used as a basis of fellowship. The idea that some brethren in Christ might be excluded from the table because of some nuance on the resurrection would be further mystifying as well.

Most of the above issues are fairly innocuous. Does it really matters that we have a nibble of bread versus a meal? However, the document-based, daisy-chain fellowship practices are a very serious error and in need of reform.

The good news is that this serious fellowship problem is not systemic. By my own estimates, this problem only exists in about 20% of the ecclesias in the world. The practitioners of what can be accurately described as document-based, daisy chain fellowship make up a small minority, but have a large influence because they tend to be from wealthier, more communicative locations on the globe. The purveyors of this model tend to live in North America, England and Australia. While there are no statistics on this practice, I will offer the following as a basis for this assertion. I have had the privilege to share the table of the Lord with brethren on 6 continents and therefore have a reasonable feel for worldwide practices. It is also easy to isolate this problem to a relatively few places by monitoring publications, on-line forums and other communications as well. The reason that it may feel like the 20% is the majority is because we filter our experiences through what we know. If we are from North America, England or Australia, on a local level we may see 80% or more practicing document-based, daisy-chain fellowship. To project this world-wide, however, would be a mistake. It may surprise people to know that there are as many brethren in Malawi as in all of North America in both “fellowships.” Even if my estimates are way off, it really doesn’t matter. The practice is still abysmal whether practiced by a few or a lot.

Now for those who are not familiar with the concept of Document-based, daisy chain fellowship, let me explain.

Document-based fellowship is the idea that a Statement of Faith is the basis for our fellowship. Speaking plainly, this is false doctrine. This concept was born in the Council of Nicaea in 325AD alongside the Trinity. For more details on this history, I recommend this previous TFTW.

The truth is that our basis of fellowship is Jesus Christ. If we are a brother or sister in Jesus Christ as defined as someone who 1) believes, 2) is baptized and 3) walks in the light, we are part of the one body and therefore should share the representations of that one body. Anyone who denies a brother or sister in Christ who is walking in the light the bread and wine is denying the body of Christ and “eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” (1 Cor. 11:29) The “Lord’s body” is those believers sitting around us for whom we are supposed to be sacrificing ourselves. When we deny a brother in Christ the bread and wine, we are not discerning the body of believers or body of Christ.

The Lord’s Table is a communal meal designed to bring us together in unity. There is no reason to practice it alone. The emblems themselves scream of bringing many into one – many grapes into one cup, many grains of wheat into one loaf. To not discern the communal aspect in its fullness is to miss the entire point. It is by loving one another as Christ loved us that we truly remember Christ; not only remembering that Jesus died and was raised. This is what we are to examine -are we living and loving as Christ did. We mock the ceremony if we are simultaneously denying part of the body its rightful place around the table.

We are also in violation of Jesus’ command to Peter “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” (Acts 10:15) when we call other brethren common and unclean by excluding them from the table.

Daisy-chain fellowship is the idea that we break bread in groups. You might be OK, but you break bread with someone else who is not OK, so this contaminates you. This practice is nothing new. This practice is the sin of Diotrephes.

I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.(3 John 9-10 NIV)

Diotrephes would not welcome John. Even worse, when brethren wanted to welcome John and other believers, Diotrephes used a daisy-chain fellowship model to put these brethren out of the church. How brethren in Christ can participate in this practice today in good conscience is beyond comprehension.

Let’s address directly the 20% of brethren who practice document-based, daisy-chain fellowship. First, we, the 80%, love you and care for you. We know that you are sincere in your efforts to preserve God’s truth and are trying to do the right thing. The truth is, however, that you are sinning to the point where you may be putting your salvation in jeopardy for you are acting the part of a schismatic. This sin finds itself in the list in Galatians 5 that says that they which do these things will not be in the Kingdom of God. It is this serious.

Also, the book of Titus instructs us that brethren are to warn you twice about this sin and then have nothing to do with you (3:10). God doesn’t give the 80% a lot of choices in dealing with you. Warn twice and then cut off. The warnings now number in the hundreds. The 80% should be ashamed in letting this go on so long.

From what I can tell, most of you in the 20% don’t really like document-based, daisy-chain fellowship, but are just going along with the flow or it is being forced on you by your ecclesia. It might be the case that your own ecclesia does not want to practice it, but that you are under pressure (aka Gal. 2:4) to keep up appearances. This is a serious sin that we cannot wink at or ignore. If we do, we risk our salvation. We must stand up and be counted for Christ. We must do the right thing regardless of how others might treat us. The only person looking over your shoulder that we need to concern ourselves with is the Lord Jesus Christ and he has issued us this warning.

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 –Depart from me, ye cursed.(Mt 25:40,41)

When we stand before Christ, all of our excuses for this behavior will vanish away. We won’t be able to blame tradition. We won’t be able to say “my ecclesia made me do it.” We won’t be able to shield ourselves with the Statement of Faith or Ecclesial Guide. We won’t be able to say “they were watching us.” Saying “we had to do this for a time” will not stand. Quotes from pioneer writings or magazines won’t matter. It will be us and our Lord. He is going to want to know why we treated brethren the way we did. Is there any reasonable excuse we can say to him? More importantly, what is he going to say to us? Matthew 25 gives us fair warning of what we can expect him to say if we continue this practice.

Have a great week,

Communications is vitally important to resolving problems. People need to understand one another. People need to understand the issues related to those problems and one of the best ways to learn is by intelligent, open and honest dialog. People need to refrain from unintelligent, hyper-critical, partisan communications. The next suggested reform for us is to learn to communicate effectively with one another and to learn to be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

The allure to me of on-line communities is strong. The idea of tossing Biblical ideas around and debating their merits has a big appeal to me. We have such a deep bench of insightful Bible scholars with interesting takes on a lot of subjects. You can learn a lot mixing it up with diverse brethren around the world. Yet, despite the allure and numerous attempts to participate in such on-line groups, I inevitably quit these forums after only a week or two. Brethren are rude to one another. They falsely accuse. They bait and mock one another. I find this discourse unsettling in the public arena, but I find it intolerable when it is brethren in Christ act this way. I am a fairly thick-skinned individual, but my conscience won’t allow me to participate when things get this out of hand.

While not participating in these on-line forums is a mild inconvenience, the underlying communication problem is very serious because it seems to occur systemically. We are ill-prepared to handle problems as a world-wide community because we can’t seem to find it in us to intelligently and peacefully talk the issues out. Dialogues become monologs. Peaceful conversations descend into rants. Intelligent discussion becomes sound bites and tripe.

We desperately need to be able to communicate about issues confronting us. For examples, in recent years there has been a movement afoot arguing that sisters should have all the duties and responsibilities of brothers including public prayers and speaking. It has taken hold in some places and sisters are sharing all responsibilities alongside brothers. This idea is controversial and has been polarizing. It could very well result in a world-wide schism if not addressed properly. It is not because this subject is any more discordant than any other we have faced, it is because it comes at a time when we have lost the ability to talk and reason with one another in a Christ-like spirit. We should be able to discuss this or any other topic as reasoning human beings whose guidelines for speech and conduct is the Holy Scriptures. As Isaiah says, “Come now, and let us reason together.” (Isa. 1:18)

We have a million excuses for this distasteful behavior in our communications. We are “defending the truth” — as if by acting like a madman we show the path of righteousness. We have a right “to express ourselves” – forgetting that “those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.” (Matt. 15:18) We refuse to respectfully listen to and understand one another’s perspective – ignoring the command to “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” (Phil. 2:3) We have strong opinions on issues where we are ignorant or misinformed failing the Biblical admonition “To answer before listening- that is folly and shame. ” (Prov. 18:13 NIV) We argue that we should only “speak thou the things which become sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1)but are neither well informed enough to say what is sound doctrine nor able to communicate what we in a humble, Christ-like manner.

When it comes to the issue of sister’s speaking, I must confess that I have studied the subject but am not an expert. I still have a lot to learn. I have read the touchstone work All One in Christ Jesus twice. I have listened to many lectures explaining this new perspective. Yet, despite all this, I remain unconvinced of the argument suggesting there are no roles based on gender. Yet, I am still open to listening and learning. I refuse to mock, vilify or attack any of the proponents of this perspective even if I don’t presently agree with it. When these (or any!) arguments are well-reasoned and presented in a Christ-like spirit, I am willing to give the idea a hearing. I might not agree in the end, but the issue can be discussed lovingly, honestly and respectfully. I fully believe that the ability to discuss this intelligently and in a Christ-like spirit is the solution. Can we agree to disagree in the end? Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps in the end, we will agree to disagree or perhaps go our separate ways because our perspectives are determined to be mutually exclusive. I don’t know. I do know, however, that angry, accusatory, manipulative, misinformed dialog on this or any other subject is not going to help anyone.

Here are ten simple things we should do and not do when communicating with brethren:

1. Listen and understand before speaking. Restate what they are saying in your own words to let them know you hear them and to make sure you understand.
2. If you are angered or upset by something said, calm down before you respond. Pray about it. All communication, even a rebuke, should be done in love – especially among brethren.
3. Never falsely accuse.
4. Never bully.
5. Never judge someone else’s heart or motives.
6. Try to be accurate and moderate in what you say. Exaggeration is a form of lying.
7. Try to take things in the best possible way.
8. Try not to carry your own personal baggage into a conversation. It is doubtful that everyone knows your background and the areas that are sensitive to you.
9. Try to practice the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
10. Pick your topics of conversation. Ask yourself if this conversation is edifying to anyone. There are some things that we shouldn’t speak about and conversations we should not be involved in.

Let’s look briefly at the alternatives to having an open, intelligent dialogue.

1) We can end all new ideas and interpretations of Scripture. We can close our ears and assume all we know is all that there is to be known. We can just stop thinking altogether and submit to a central authority. This doesn’t seem like an especially wise move considering Jesus’ advice “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” (Mt 7:7) It is impossible to both seek and not seek at the same time.

2) We can just accept any idea or opinion regardless of its merit. We will give higher weight to those who talk the loudest, are bullies or are the best politicians. This doesn’t seem like a great idea either as the Scriptures teach “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1Jo 4:1)

3) We can remain ignorant. We can shut ourselves off from everyone else. We can avoid conversations about all things spiritual. This might lead to a dullness of spirit as we are told in Proverbs. “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” (Pr 27:17)

4) We can develop a party spirit and attack those whose perspective might differ from our own. At every turn we will use the tactics of spin doctors and thwart any meaningful discourse that might otherwise occur. This too seems like a terrible idea because of these brethren it says “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Gal. 5:21)

It seems we don’t have a lot of viable alternatives to open, honest and intelligent communications on spiritual matters -at least without dire consequences. Let’s put it this way, open, honest and intelligent dialogue is not going to be the end of the Truth as we know it while the opposite of it may be.

As I did last week, let me also clarify what I am not saying. I am not saying you cannot be passionate in your communications. The issues before us concern what is hopefully the most important thing in our life – our service to our Lord God and Jesus Christ. I am not suggesting that you have to be a diplomat in all your interactions. It is fine to be candid as long as we don’t cloak sinful, mean-spirited communications under the guise of candor. I am not saying there is never a place for a public rebuke (Titus 2:15) Yet, this should be only after proper protocols have been followed and even then it should be done infrequently and in a Christ-like manner by the shepherds of the flock. In all of the above, Jesus was passionate, candid and offered rebukes in his interaction with men. He is, as always, the model for our behavior in this arena.

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. (Eph. 4:29 ESV)

Have a great week,