If the purpose and pinnacle of the gathering of the church is for the people to hear one man give a sermon, then why shouldn’t we just listen to the very best men via teleconference or even recording? We hear all the time that the problem with the church is that we need more and better expository preaching. With all love to my friends who preach and in full recognition of my own limitations in preaching, I would say that you get a much better expository sermon from Piper or MacArthur than you get from virtually any senior pastor in any local church in America. If the goal is to hear a solid, expository sermon why not get the best sermon you can get? Better yet. What if you broadcast Bob Kauflin every Sunday morning on a tape delay “leading the worship”? What is the difference between Bob on video and a guy up front telling you what songs to sing? Bob is going to give you a “better”, more polished and professional song leadership. The accompaniment will be on key, the singing will be perfect, the songs will be properly vetted. How about we film Ligon Duncan praying and reciting 1 Corinthians 11 over a huge pile of oyster crackers and pallets of grape juice? Then we could ship portions out to churches observing the Supper that week and splice in the footage of Duncan blessing it prior to passing around the platters.

For most Christians in traditional churches on a Sunday morning, they are primarily sitting and watching. Does it really matter if they are watching a guy in-person on stage or Mark Dever on a video feed? I think taking the traditional model of evangelical church life to a logical extreme, why not do this? Just think, we could take up the offering and put it into the bank and then the central church could sweep the money into one big account and distribute it. That is how mormons do it. Instead of squabbling about carpet colors at the local level, let a regional super senior pastor figure it out. For those of us who are Reformed, we could break it down regionally. Albert Mohler could get the south, MacArthur everything west of the Mississippi, Piper the Midwest and Northeast and Dever could run the east coast. We could appoint under-under shepherds in smaller areas, Steve Lawson in Alabama, Kevin DeYoung in Michigan, etc. No more boring, wandering sermons. No more butchering of “A Mighty Fortress is our God”.

I think this idea has real promise.

Mormonism

If Joseph was prophet, seer, and revelator, how could he have gotten the Book of Abraham (published as the “Pearl of Great Price”) so wrong? He claimed it was written by Abraham’s own hand. Modern scholars and Egyptologists (some hired by the church) have discovered that the papyrus is nothing more than a pagan funerary document on preparing the dead for the afterlife. And, if the church is headed by real “prophets, seers, and revelators,” why did it have to hire scholars to translate the papyri in the first place?
If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, why did many of his specific prophecies not come true? The bible teaches that one false prophecy makes a false prophet.
Why did “prophet” Brigham Young say by way of revelation that black men were never to hold the priesthood until after the Millennium because of their spiritual unworthiness and “prophet” Spencer W. Kimball give them the priesthood in 1978? Did God change His mind (again)? Did Joseph Smith not know this “decree of heaven” when he ordained a black man to the priesthood?
Why did Joseph partially “translate” the metal plates found in Kinderhook, Illinois proclaiming them to be the ancient writings of a Lamanite, when in actuality the plates were a hoax, made and buried locally by men seeking to expose Joseph Smith as a fraud?
Why was the church buying forged documents purported to be written by early church leaders from Mark Hoffman in the early 1980’s? This alleged church history proved to be embarrassing to the church. How come Gordon B. Hinckley didn’t know as an “agent for God” that the documents were fraudulent

Other religions will bring you to God. Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam — they’ll all eventually bring you to God. Mormonism, Christian Science, paganism, animism, and Roman Catholicism will bring you to God. Every practitioner of every religion created by man and/or demon will, by that religion, be brought to God.

But none of those religions will bring us to God as “Father”!

They will bring us to God as Judge.

Roman Catholic church

When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.
Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man, not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.
Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice-gerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus. For the priest is and should be another Christ. (John O'Brien, The Faith of Millions, 255-256)

Or, how about this one?

“On this account it was,” says St. Bernard, “that the Eternal Father, wishing to show all the mercy possible, besides with giving us Jesus Christ, our principal advocate him, was pleased also to give us Mary, as our advocate with Jesus Christ.” “There is no doubt,” the saint adds, “that Jesus Christ is the only mediator of justice between men and God; that, by virtue of his own merits and promises, he will and can obtain us pardon and the divine favors; but because men acknowledge and fear the divine Majesty, which is in him as God, for this reason it was necessary to assign us another advocate, to whom we might have recourse with less fear and more confidence, and this advocate is Mary, than whom we cannot find one more powerful with his divine majesty, or one more merciful towards ourselves.” The saint says, “Christ is a faithful and powerful Mediator between God and men, but in him men fear the majesty of God. A mediator, then, was needed with the mediator himself; nor could a more fitting one be found than Mary.” (Liguori, The Glories of Mary, pp. 195-196)

Don’t grieve for me, for now I’m free
I’m following the path God has laid you see.
I took His hand when I heard him call
I turned my back and left it all.

I could not stay another day
To laugh, to love, to work, to play.
Tasks left undone must stay that way
I found that peace at the close of day.

If my parting has left a void
Then fill it with remembered joy.
A friendship shared, a laugh, a kiss
Oh yes, these things I too will miss.

Be not burdened with times of sorrow
I wish you the sunshine of tomorrow.
My life’s been full, I savored much
Good friends, good times, a loved one’s touch.

Perhaps my time seemed all too brief
Don’t lengthen it now with undue grief.
Lift up your hearts and peace to thee
God wanted me now; He set me free.

The new "papal encyclical" Caritas in veritate or "Charity in Truth" from Joseph Ratzinger (aka "Pope Benedict") has garnered some attention and a lot of concern for the language it uses.Granted, I am not all that interested in theological ponderings from Joseph Ratzinger and I am even less interested in his economic theories. Much of the encyclical is filled with flowery pronouncements and reiterations of prior papal declarations, sprinkled liberally with quotes like this:It is an expression of the prophetic task of the Supreme Pontiffs to give apostolic guidance to the Church of Christ and to discern the new demands of evangelization.That reinforces the misguided notion that the men who style themselves “popes” somehow speak for all Christians everywhere. Regardless, there are some useful statements within this declaration. Certainly he is right that charity and love play a central role in the Christian life and all too often both are missing from those who claim the name of Christ. We all certainly need to reflect on our lack of charity, our failure to express love to those around us as Christ expressed love to the unlovely, i.e. redeemed sinners.Where I have grave reservations is where Mr. Ratzinger applies how this should be practically lived out.There are numerous statements that exhibit an misunderstanding of basic economics, like this one:On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care.Intellectual property rights in the private sector provide protection of investment, especially in health care. It is not like a new drug springs forth ready for market after an afternoon of brainstorming. The process is extremely competitive, very expensive and new drugs have limited protections before they become available for generics, so even a breakthrough drug must go through exhaustive regulatory hoops and then the clock starts ticking toward the day when the drug is able to be replicated as a generic. It is precisely because of patent protections that companies are willing to invest enormous sums of money that lead to life saving drugs. People have these drugs that save, extend and improve lives because of the right to intellectual property. Another example:The repeated calls issued within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.Quite to the contrary. Rerum Novarum was written in 1891 when basic workers rights were absent. Today, we see the collapse of venerable institutions like General Motors and Chrysler and the crippling of Ford because of, in large part, these very same workers associations.The words “redistribution”, “solidarity” and “exploitation” appear often in the encyclical and are not chosen by accident. When he writes: “What is also needed, though, is a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them.”, one is forced to wonder how this is to happen, who is decide how much is to be redistributed and who is to receive these resources.The strongest statement comes in this paragraph (emphasis added):To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations.Did you catch all of that? A centralized international authority with the power to ensure "security" and enforce "compliance". I am sure all of the end-times types are jumping all over this, but this is not a sign of the coming "rapture", it is a sign of a dangerous call for international authority over U.S. property and resources.
In the end, Christian charity is expected of Christians but nations are not Christian. They may contain many Christian citizens who are bound to demonstrate love and perform acts of charity not as a condition for but as a result of their salvation, but nations are not and should not be expected to behave in “Christian” ways. Even with that in mind, what Mr. Ratzinger proposes is not only economically unsound, it also misinterprets what the Bible teaches about charity. What he is proposing: wealth redistribution, class warfare, socialism/communism, authoritarian centralized international government are not the signs or the enablers of charity and love. Wealth seized by force or the threat of force is not charity. When the early church sold their belongings and gave the proceeds to the apostles, they did so freely and out of love for one another. A central international authority reallocating resources from "rich" countries to "poor" countries is not only doomed to failure, it is also foreign to what the Bible speaks of in regards to Christian charity.Caring for the poor is noble but centralized governments and wealth distribution do not lead to positive economic equality but instead lead to shared misery. To expect countries and companies to behave in a Christian fashion is foolhardy and unrealistic, and ultimately is counter-productive. If Mr. Ratzinger is truly concerned for the poor, he should be encouraging the free market not calling for centralization. It is the free market, capitalism for lack of a better word, that has led to unprecedented increases in the standard of living for hundreds of millions of people. True, it has not been equitable but that is not a fault of free markets but of totalitarian governments. Without the free markets we would certainly have equity, but it would be equitable poverty and misery. (As a gratuitous cheap shot, if he is so concerned about the poor, maybe the Vatican can sell of some of its treasures and use the proceeds for hunger relief?)Why do I care? I reject Joseph Ratzinger's claims as the "Vicar of Christ" and I see his office as contrary to Biblical teachings and an invention of men. His opinions to me are irrelevant and hold no authority or sway. So why does this warrant the attention of Christians? Many people outside of the church see Mr. Ratzinger as representing Christians, and I am sure that this encyclical will be put forth by some as a defense of socialism. Many Christians also don't recognize the unBiblical nature of the papacy and the use of Scripture quotes and "God talk" may confuse some people. Finally, anytime someone misrepresents the teaching of Scripture, it warrants a response.
So take my thoughts for what they are, my thoughts, and tell me what your thoughts are. Is Mr. Ratzinger correct? Is this who kerfuffle irrelevant? Is this encyclical a veiled call for one world government and socialism?

Homosexuality is the manifestation of sexual desire toward a member of one’s own sex or the erotic activity with a member of the same sex. (The Greek word homos means the same). A lesbian is a female homosexual. More recently the term “gay” has come into popular use to refer to both sexes who are homosexuals.

Q. How does one determine if the practice of homosexuality is right or wrong?

That depends upon who is answering the question. The Christian point of view is based solely upon the Bible, the divinely inspired Word of God. A truly Christian standard of ethics is the conduct of divine revelation, not of statistical research nor of public opinion. For the Christian, the Bible is the final authority for both belief and behaviour.

Q. What explicitly does the Bible teach about homosexuality?

This question I consider to be basic because, if we accept God’s Word on the subject of homosexuality, we benefit from His adequate answer to this problem. I am concerned only with the Christian or biblical view of homosexuality. The Bible has much to say about sex sins in general.

First, there is adultery. Adultery in the natural sense is sexual intercourse of a married person with someone other than his or her own spouse. It is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments (Exodus 20:14; I Cor. 6:9, 10). Christ forbids dwelling upon the thoughts, the free play of one’s imagination that leads to adultery (Matthew 5:28).

Second, there is fornication, the illicit sex acts of unmarried persons which is likewise forbidden (I Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; Ephesians 5:3).

Then there is homosexuality which likewise is condemned in Scripture. The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: “And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God” (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God’s viewpoint nor depart from it.

In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel” (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known. Let us look at the passages in question:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house around, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:4-8)

The Hebrew word for “know” in verse 5 is yada`, a sexual term. It is used frequently to denote sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25; Matthew 1:24, 25). The message in the context of Genesis 19 is clear. Lot pled with the men to “do not so wickedly.” Homosexuality is wickedness and must be recognized as such else there is no hope for the homosexual who is asking for help to be extricated from his perverted way of life.

Q. You said that sexua1 intercourse outside of marriage is condemned in the Bible. How do you explain marriage ceremonies in which two persons of the same sex are united by an officiating clergyman or justice of the peace?

There are cases on record where a marriage license was issued to persons of the same sex. I recall one such incident in Phoenix, Arizona. A marriage license was issued in the Maricopa County clerk’s office to two men 39 and 21 years old respectively. The two men are reported to have “married” in a private ceremony.

However, to call a union of two persons of the same sex a “marriage” is a misnomer. In the Bible, marriage is a divinely ordered institution designed to form a permanent union between one man and one woman for one purpose (among others) of procreating or propagating the human race. That was God’s order in the first of such unions (Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:24; Matthew 19:5). If, in His original creation of humans, God had created two persons of the same sex, there would not be a human race in existence today. The whole idea of two persons of the same sex marrying is absurd, unsound, ridiculously unreasonable, stupid. A clergyman might bless a homosexual marriage but God won’t.

Q. A Jesuit Priest, John J. McNeill, reportedly said in a conference (Christianity Today, June 3, 1977), “There is no clear condemnation of homosexual activity to be found anywhere in the Bible.” How does a church leader arrive at such a conclusion?

This particular Jesuit priest, like some other supposedly Christian theologians, have totally ignored the Scriptures as the guidelines for Christian behaviour in regard to homosexuality. McNeill does not speak for the Roman Catholic Church, but for a small segment of priests who, having vowed themselves to celibacy, that is, to abstain from marriage and sexual intercourse, have found sexual gratification in homosexual acts.

However, religious sex perverts are plentiful among protestants. Protestant leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have gradually eased away from the Scriptures. In England men like Bishop John Robinson, in his book Honest to God made a play on the term “The New Morality,” which in reality was a plea to open the door to immorality making it respectable and thus acceptable. The Bishop went so far as to describe the unscriptural adulterous relationship as “a kind of holy communion.” This modern concept of Christian ethics rejects totally the precepts laid down by God in His Word. It is blasphemous and atheistic.

Recently in America ten homosexually oriented religious organizations, comprised of men and women from more than a dozen denominations, and from seventeen states and Canada, met at Kirkbridge, a retreat and study center near Bangor, Pennsylvania. The retreat was entitled, “Gay and Christian.” But the two terms, “gay” and “Christian” are mutually exclusive, incompatible, incongruous.

Representing the women at that retreat, Nancy Krody a lesbian, spoke on “The Lesbian Christian Experience.” Here again is a misnomer. A practicing Christian, from the biblical viewpoint, will not be a practicing homosexual. Of course, I make the distinction between a professing Christian and a practicing Christian. Calling one’s self a Christian does not make one a Christian.

Malcolm Boyd speaks about “The Gay Male Christian Experience.” Boyd, a protestant clergyman, says he has been a homosexual secretly for years. Only recently he made a public announcement of his homosexuality. He claims that his public announcement of his homosexuality has brought him back to the church. Boyd does not tell us what he means by the “church”!

Following is one point on which the speakers at Kirkbridge agreed: “A monogamous homosexual relationship characterized by fidelity, honesty and love is possible, desirable, and honoring to God.”

Any evil condemned in Scripture cannot be honoring to God. Homosexual religious leaders attempt to smooth over the breaks and rough places with Christian terminology so that a euphoria predominates, but God is not in it. A truly born again person, who loves and understands the Bible as God’s revelation to him, will not condone an evil that God condemns. “If ye know that He is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him” (I John 2:29). “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (II Timothy 2:19). Practicing homosexuals are engaged in a divinely forbidden evil.

Q. Why do homosexuals refer to themselves as “gay”?

The word “gay” means merry, exuberant, bright, lively. More recently it has been adopted by homosexuals. In its original use it did not have this double meaning. The clever adaptation of the word “gay” by homosexuals has robbed it of its pure meaning, thereby corrupting a once perfectly good word. I never use the word “gay” when referring to homosexuals. There are many bright, exuberant, merry people in this world who are not sexual perverts.

Q. You made reference to First Corinthians 6:9-11. What is the meaning of the word “effeminate” in verse 9?

There are certain words in every language that can be used in a good or bad sense. In the context of this verse the use of “effeminate” is obviously in a bad sense. It is listed among other evils which are condemned. It describes feminine qualities inappropriate to a man. It is normal and natural for a woman to be sexually attracted to a man; it is abnormal and unnatural for a man to be sexually attracted to another man. Many male homosexuals are effeminate, but not all. Nor are all lesbians unduly masculine.

Q. Are there other Scriptures in the New Testament which deal with homosexuality?

Yes. Romans 1:24-27; I Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7. If one takes these Scriptures seriously, homosexuality will be recognized as an evil. The Romans passage is unmistakably clear. Paul attributes the moral depravity of men and women to their rejection of “the truth of God” (1:25). They refused “to retain God in their knowledge” (1:28), thereby dethroning God and deifying themselves. The Old Testament had clearly condemned homosexuality but in Paul’s day there were those persons who rejected its teaching. Because of their rejection of God’s commands He punished their sin by delivering them over to it.

The philosophy of substituting God’s Word with one’s own reasoning commenced with Satan. He introduced it at the outset of the human race by suggesting to Eve that she ignore God’s orders, assuring her that in so doing she would become like God with the power to discern good and evil (Genesis 3:1-5). That was Satan’s big lie. Paul said that when any person rejects God’s truth, his mind becomes “reprobate,” meaning perverted, void of sound judgment. The perverted mind, having rejected God’s truth, is not capable of discerning good and evil.

In Romans 1:26-31 twenty-three punishable sins are listed with homosexuality leading the list. Paul wrote, “For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (Romans 1:26, 27). These verses are telling us that homosexuals suffer in their body and personality the inevitable consequences of their wrong doing. Notice that the behaviour of the homosexual is described as a “vile affection” (1:26). The Greek word translated “vile” (atimia) means filthy, dirty, evil, dishonourable. The word “affection” in Greek is pathos, used by the Greeks of either a good or bad desire. Here in the context of Romans it is used in a bad sense. The “vile affection” is a degrading passion, a shameful lust. Both the desire (lusting after) and the act of homosexuality are condemned in the Bible as sin.

Q. There are those persons who say that homosexuality, even though a perverted form of the normal, God-ordained practice of sex, is a genetic problem, constitutionally inherited. Is there evidence to support this view?

I read in a periodical that in June, 1963 a panel of specialists in medicine, psychiatry, law, sociology and theology participated in a conference on homosexuality called by the Swiss Evangelical Church Union. That group reached the conclusion that homosexuality is not constitutionally inherited, it is not a part of one’s genetic makeup. The ill-founded and unverifiable myth that homosexuality results from genetic causes is gradually fading away.

There are possibly a number of different ways in which homosexual practices could begin. When boys and girls reach puberty and the genital organs develop, it is not uncommon for boys to experiment with boys, and girls with girls. In prisons where men and women are denied access to persons of the opposite sex for long periods of time, some are introduced to homosexuality for the first time.

A young Christian woman came to our office in Detroit for counseling. She became involved in lesbianism when her marriage began to fail. She was introduced to her first homosexual experience by a divorcee who was her neighbor. After six months of practicing lesbianism she was convicted of her sin and sought help. We were able to show her from the Bible that she was sinning and that God stood ready and willing to forgive and cleanse her. She confessed and forsook her sin, and continues to this day to live a happy, normal Christian life.

Homosexuality must be accepted for what God says it is– sin. Some homosexuals will attempt to circumvent the plain teaching of the Bible with the insipid reply that they are the way God made them. There is not the slightest bit of evidence in Scripture to support this false concept. God never created man with a so-called “homosexual need.” No baby is born a homosexual. Every baby is born male or female. In every place the Bible refers to homosexuality, the emphasis is upon the perversion of sexuality. The practicing homosexual is guilty of “leaving the natural use of the woman” (Romans 1:27), meaning that his behaviour is “against nature” as in the case of the lesbian (Romans 1:26). Inasmuch as homosexuality is opposed to the regular law and order of nature, the genetic concept must be ruled out completely. If homosexuality were a genetic problem, there would be little hope for the homosexual simply because there is no way that the genes in a person can be changed.

Q. Are there contributing factors to homosexuality for which a homosexual might not be responsible?

Yes, I believe there are. I have not done much research in this area, however, studies made by others showed varied deviations from the average or normal parent-child relationship. For example, clinical cases show that some homosexuals have not had a normal or natural relationship with the parent of the same sex. In some instances there has been a wide gap between father and son. There are those boys who have been neglected by their unaffectionate fathers. The boy who has not had a good and wholesome relationship with his father could have an unfulfilled need for a father relationship with a man. Now that need will not start out as a sexual one, but there are cases on record in which the sexual relationship has developed. I know one case of a homosexual adult who seduced a 13 year old boy whose father had forsaken him. Before the boy’s contact with the older man he had no knowledge whatever of homosexuality. The older man seduced the boy.

Lesbianism has been known to follow this same pattern. Some mother-daughter relationships are not conducive to a normal social and sexual development. One young woman came to her pastor seeking help. She had gotten involved with a lesbian in the community where she lived, a woman twenty-one years her senior. The girl’s parents had a defective marriage which ended in divorce when the daughter was ten years old. Her mother became bitter and resentful against all men. She convinced her daughter that men were not to be trusted, and that man’s one goal was to exploit women sexually. The daughter grew up with a fear of men, a fear totally unwarranted. She was an easy victim of the seductive older lesbian. The good and wise pastor showed the counselee from the Bible that homosexuality was sinful and that God condemned it. She confessed her sin to God and received Jesus Christ as her Savior and Lord. Today she is happily married to a fine Christian man.

Q. Do you believe that the homosexual controversy is causing problems for the churches of America?

Evil in any form is a problem in the church. It always has been. The greater problem, however, is the church’s failure to discipline evil when it arises. Karl Menninger’s book, Whatever Became of Sin?, deals directly with that point. There are ministers, priests, and rabbis who never talk about sin. There was a time when the minister of God’s Word preached the whole counsel of God. Today many pulpits are silent on the sin question. Sin has become fashionable and therefore acceptable. When sin gets its victim into serious difficulty, the psychiatrist and psychologist tell him he is sick. The church must face the fact of sin squarely.

Q. Does the Bible tell us how the church should deal with sexual sins?

In Old Testament times in Israel God dealt severely with homosexuals. He warned His people through Moses, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). Every Jew knew that homosexuality was an abomination, a disgusting practice to be loathed, hated. This was God’s attitude toward that evil practice. He hated it to the extent that He considered it worthy of punishment by death. Now God loved His people Israel dearly, and it was from His great heart of love that He chastened them. The Epistle to the Hebrews says, “For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth” (Hebrews 12:7). When God issued His law forbidding homosexuality, and the punishment for those persons who violated that law, He did so in order to prevent them from sinning. However, when anyone broke the law, the offender paid the penalty due him. God is a holy God who hates and judges sin. Parents who love their children will not refrain from warning them of prevailing evils, nor will they fail to chasten them when they disobey. The church today not only tolerates sin but in some instances condones it. God does neither.

In the New Testament the principle of discipline was applied with apostolic authority. In the church at Corinth the young man who was committing fornication with his step-mother was excommunicated. Paul instructed the church to take that action “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . and with the power (i.e. the authority) of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Corinthians 5:1-8). In Romans 1:21-32 where Paul shows the Gentile world in its downward plunge into sin, including the sin of homosexuality, verse 32 concludes with the words, “who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death . . . ” Worthy of death, yes. But today we are not under law but under grace. People used to hear and heed the Gospel-truth, the message that God is holy, man is a sinner, and that through faith in the substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, sinful people can be born again and thereby delivered from the guilt and penalty and practice of their sins.

Q. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for the church?

Nothing is more foundationally essential for the church and the world than a return to the truth. Recently I read where someone said we are suffering from a famine of the worst kind, “a truth-famine.” Our modern culture is in a degenerating, deteriorating stage caused by a departure from the truth. And I must say unequivocally that truth does not exist independently of God, and His written Word the Bible, and His Son Jesus Christ. Truth is in no sense of man’s imagination or contrivance. Man in his fallen state does not know truth, and that is why he continues to go on sinning. A civilization without the truth is doomed to oblivion. Every ancient civilization that ignored God and His laws has crumbled. Our present civilization is well on the road to doom. We cannot survive independently of God and His Word.

The Church must return to the truth, the whole truth, the sum total of truth founded and grounded upon Him Who said, “I am the truth” (John 14:6). In our Lord’s high priestly prayer for His own He prayed, “Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17). There must be in our churches the clear exposition of the Scriptures and a continuing exaltation of the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ if our civilization is to be saved from the disasters that overcame past civilizations. Any civilization with a philosophy or a doctrine which denies the real truth cannot survive.

Q. Do you see any prophetic significance in the recent homosexual upsurge?

Yes, I do. However, I would suggest caution on this point. It is not uncommon for preachers to attach a prophetic meaning to every earthquake, riot, war, moral scandal or political disaster, labeling all such events as “signs of the times.”

The modern homosexual upsweep is one phase of a declining trend in morals. When the disciples asked our Lord, “What shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the consummation of the age?” He told them that “iniquity shall abound” (Matthew 24:3, 12). There is today a permissiveness and a promiscuity in sexual behaviour unprecedented in the history of America. There is little restraint upon the widespread of material containing pictures and writing depicting erotic behaviour intended to cause sexual excitement. This would be included in our Lord’s prophecy about abounding iniquity.

There is also a prophetic statement in Paul’s Second Epistle to Timothy which has some bearing upon the subject we are discussing. Paul said, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection . . . ” (II Timothy 3:1-3). Homosexuality is an unnatural affection, practiced by persons “that defile themselves with mankind” (I Timothy 1:10), translated in the New American Standard Version “homosexuals,” and in the New International Version, “perverts.” I conclude, in the light of these Scriptures, that the rise of homosexuality is very definitely a trend which indicates the approaching end of the age.

Q. Have you personally counseled with homosexuals?

Yes, in two pastorates over a period of twenty-five years. In each instance the homosexual was a man in his thirties who had seduced teen-aged boys. The seduction of younger persons is a pattern most homosexuals follow. They seem to prefer gratifying their lust with youth. This is a pattern typical of men who marry several wives. Men who do not respect their marriage vows pursue women younger than themselves. One man of wealth was reportedly married and divorced six times. Most of his wives were young enough to be his daughters. The two homosexual men who applied for a marriage license in the Maricopa County Clerk’s Office in Arizona were 39 and 21 years old, quite a variation in ages.

Q. Do you attach any significance to the age factor you mentioned?

Yes, I do. I see a potential threat to young people who are exposed to homosexuals. Older practicing homosexuals are a threat to the youth.

Q. Do you care to make any comments on the Anita Bryant crusade in Dade County, Florida?

In my judgment Anita Bryant was justified in the action she pursued. She did not want her children exposed to the influence of a practicing homosexual in the public school classroom. Inasmuch as homosexuality is classified in the Bible as an evil, to insist that children be exposed to homosexual teachers in the public schools would be an infringement upon the rights of parents and their children. Under no condition would I permit my children to be subjected to the influence of a sex pervert. As an American citizen I consider that choice to be my right. Anita Bryant laid her career on the line in the bold and courageous stand she took. She should not have to fight the battle alone. Christians should support her.

Q. What should be the Christian’s attitude toward the homosexual?

We must always keep before us the fact that homosexuals, like all of us sinners, are the objects of God’s love. The Bible says, “But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Jesus Christ “is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (I John 2:2). The Christian who shares God’s love for lost sinners will seek to reach the homosexual with the gospel of Christ, which “is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth” (Romans 1:16). As a Christian I should hate all sin but I can find no justification for hating the sinner. The homosexual is a precious soul for whom Christ died. We Christians can show him the best way of life by pointing him to Christ. Our Lord said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). We are obligated to take the gospel to all.

Q. How can we help Christians who get involved in the practice of homosexuality?

We can help them by seeking to draw their attention to what God says in His Word. In a kind and loving spirit we can show them that they are wrong. However, the homosexual must admit to the fact that he is living in sin and that he has the desire to be made free from it. Without a genuine conviction of God’s displeasure and a strong desire to do God’s will, there is no hope. A truly born again person cannot continue to practice sin without reaping the results of miserable unhappiness brought on by loss of fellowship with God, the fear of retribution and the anxiety produced by guilt. The homosexual must ask himself, “Is the temporary gratification of the flesh worth all the penalty and losses I must suffer?”

As for reconciling his lifestyle choices with the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality (Lev. 18:22, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, et al.), Allen says part of his interpretation is contextual, part cultural, and part gleaned from his own understanding of God.

As I've studied Scripture to understand the purpose of the church meeting, I've seen the importance of mutuality. What is "mutuality"? Mutuality is the recognition that God can and does work through all of his children, and therefore, everyone should have the opportunity to edify others during the church meeting.

In most modern church meetings (of almost every denominational flavor), mutuality has been abandoned. In fact, when I ask people why only the pastor is allowed to speak during the church meeting (with very rare exception), I get one of a few answers.

1) There could be heretical teachings.

2) It would be chaotic to allow anyone to speak.

These answers demonstrate that the people believe that mutuality is dangerous and not acceptable during the church meetings.

There are other answers to the question of mutuality:

3) There are too many people in the congregation.

4) Other people are not trained or educated.

These answers demonstrate that mutuality can be good, but not necessary. Thus, in some circumstances, it is okay to abandon the concept of mutuality when the church meets.

However, Scripture seems to indicate that mutuality - mutual ministry and mutual edification - is necessary for the growth of the body. In Ephesians 4:11-16, Paul says that every member of the body must work together in order for the church to mature. In 1 Corinthians 14:26-40, Paul encourages two or three to speak in tongues (with interpretation) and two or three to prophesy (with others judging). Would Paul also apply his "two or three" rule to teaching, exhortation, etc.? Either way, it seems that Paul has mutual speaking in mind during the church meeting. The author of Hebrews tells his readers to "exhort one another daily" and to "consider one another to stir up love and good works". This last exhortation is given specifically in relation to "not forsaking meeting together". Thus, the context of stirring one another up to love and good works and encouraging one another is whenever believers meet together.

Scripture exhorts the church to find a way to allow mutual ministry, mutual teaching, mutual exhortation, especially when the church is meeting. Instead, in many cases, we've decided to set aside the instructions and examples of Scripture. While most believers would never set aside commands about murder or stealing, we're more comfortable abandoning the exhortations toward mutual ministry when the church meets. We're much more comfortable in allowing our circumstances or decisions (i.e. size of the congregation, tradition, education) override what Scripture teaches about our responsibilities toward one another.

I'm glad to see that more and more followers of Jesus are beginning to question how and why the church meets.

This is what Dave Black (Friday, April 3, 2009 at 8:47 a.m.) says in the first chapter of The Jesus Paradigm:

What might this kingdom-focused church of the twenty-first century look like? It will be a serving church. Its organizational structure will be simple, unencumbered by bureaucrats and bureaucracies. Its financial priorities will reflect a commitment to missions, local and global. Capital expenditures will be reduced and the savings earmarked for discipleship. Most jobs that are currently salaried positions will be filled by volunteer help or eliminated. Denominations will make drastic reductions in funds spent on publications that are a waste of the church's money (bulletins, glossy magazines, and Sunday School quarterlies – the Bible will be used instead). Church buildings will be used for primary and secondary Christian education. Believers will gladly work transdenominationally and cooperatively, especially at the local level. The church will proclaim the Good News of the Gospel as its first priority while not neglecting the cultural mandate. A full-fledged lay ministry will replace clericalism. Individual believers will be expected to assume specialized ministries according to their giftedness. Churches will provide regular lay training and build voluntary programs of education into their structures. Worship will no longer be confined to a single time or place. Preoccupation with church buildings will be seen for what it is – idolatry. The church will no longer cling to its prerogatives but take the form of a servant. It will refuse any longer to shun the secular. Trained pastors will become humble assistants to the "ministers" – every member. Disciples will take the going forth as seriously as they do the gathering. New believers will be asked to specify a regular community involvement (neighborhood council, PTA, volunteer library staff, nursing home visitation, etc.) in addition to their commitment to a ministry in the church.

Plus, Henry Neufeld, the publisher, has read the book and responded to it in his blog post here. Here are some of his remarks:

Normally, prospective authors inform me of the tremendous sales possibilities of their manuscript, how many people will love it, and why I ought to be willing to invest substantial sums in bringing it before a soon-to-be adoring public, certain to make them (and me) rich. Generally they’re very wrong.

But Dr. David Alan Black, author of more than 20 books, said: “Nobody will really be happy with my book.”

And that is a book that I choose to publish. This is not because I object to selling books or want to make people unhappy. It’s because for me, Energion Publications is a ministry, and ministry means service.

The bottom line is that I think that every Christian, especially in America, would do well to read this book. I have just made my first complete run through the manuscript, and that conviction grew stronger with every chapter. Do I agree with everything said? No. Did each and every page give me a glowing feeling inside? No. Do I think you’re going to love every minute of the time you spend reading it? I don’t.

The fact is that this book hit the spot for me. Now “hit the spot” is an expression we use to refer to comfort. After a good meal, we might say, “That really hit the spot.” But there’s another kind of spot-the one you find in the center of a target. You know, that big red circle surround by all those concentric rings. The arrow of conviction hit the spot.

There are many reasons that I'm looking forward to this book. The publisher mentions several in his blog post. For me, there's another one: I'm attracted to what I see God doing in Dave Black's life. For those of us who know him, I think this book will be even more important and more challenging. Why? Because, we will read his book and his life.

Music in the Church: How Special Should We Make It?Jim Elliff
You could put the entire teaching about church music in the New Testament in a paragraph or two. Add to this teaching those spirited illustrations of corporate singing in heaven displayed in the last book of the Bible, when angels and throngs of people fill the air with thundering six to eight line choruses. When it comes to intentional instruction about music, however, there are really only four passages in the New Testament:
Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. Ephesians 5:19

Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. Colossians 3:16

Therefore, let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. Otherwise, if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. 1 Corinthians 14:13-17

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 1 Corinthians 14:26

That’s it. For all the millions of dollars spent on buying equipment, paying music leaders, crafting multi-level music programs, training choral leaders, and building buildings that accommodate elaborate musical presentations, these verses comprise a very tiny pedestal upon which to rest such a large elephant as the music program of the church.

With all this going on, you would think that surely under it all you would discover a solid foundation of Scripture to support such massive, expensive and time-intensive behavior. Sadly, however, very few churches think through what the New Testament teaches when forming their music strategy. What did churches of the New Testament, large or small, mature or new-born, do with music under the tutelage of the Apostle Paul?


“I Go Because I Like The Music.”

I’m guessing, but I doubt that anybody joined with the early believers because they liked the music. If they were looking primarily for music and show, perhaps the local temple would have been the better choice. The pagan temple worship that most people knew in those days included plays, dance, singing, and even parades, but the early believers appear to have never thought of emulating their kind of worship in order to attract such people for Christ. Early church music was no match for the extravaganzas temple leaders could put on. Unlike our churches today, early Christians didn’t even compete with them.

The Jewish Temple worship was also highly skilled, choreographed and perhaps exciting to listen to, but, again, the early church seemed to by-pass that approach to winning people to Christ, or for designing their church life together.

In more recent days (yet long before Christian people used the words “Church Growth”), enterprising leaders sought to attract crowds to their churches with music. It was called “special music.” I once made up an entire verse of a well-loved solo piece in a large church which rhymed but didn’t make sense. Perhaps that could be called “special,” but not most of what happens in churches every Sunday. What we do each week in churches might better be called “routine music.” We should say, “Miss Roselle will give the routine music this morning.” It doesn’t matter if Miss Roselle wilts the flowers with her shrill soprano warble, the order of service demands “special music.” It is planned out and pressed into the agenda, even if you have to get the most ungodly church members to do it. How did the apostle Paul ever make it without special music prior to his messages?

But some churches offer more than a shrill solo. Some lay out a feast of music that is close to dazzling. Nobody announces that Miss Roselle will sing. She just does it—maybe with smoke rising up all around her. And many more do it after her. I cannot count the number of times in churches around our nation when I’ve heard music that was so professional, practiced, and polished that it would rival any ticket-only concert. Only the top musicians could be engaged to do it. Everybody else is “audience.” To be more truthful, Miss Roselle wouldn’t have a chance to warble among such musicians.

Often people join churches only when they “like the music.” For many people, that alone is enough to satisfy. Sadly, many churches are so music-driven that the teaching of the word is swallowed up in its ample motherly arms until it is nearly irrelevant. Three weeks without the full production, and the church building would be emptied.

Don’t mistake my concern for a lack of desire for excellence. I once thought I would give my ministry life to music. I know something about it. But it seems to me that we have gone to elaborate extremes before reflecting on what the New Testament has to say.

The New Testament on Music

So how should we integrate moving, meaningful, Christ-exalting music into our church’s life? What should we do or not do? I could suggest a thousand things off the top of my head (beginning with, “Have a talk with Miss Roselle.”). But what we need is not better ideas, but biblical ideas. Let me suggest a few things the Bible teaches. I believe these are among the most critical ideas, because these are all God has chosen to say about music to the New Testament church in the New Covenant. Be prepared for some radical concepts:

First, the verses above indicate that music should be about edification of believers. At least this is the emphasis in Paul’s writing. From John’s Revelation we see music employed for praise, but Paul is straight as an arrow about insisting on edification as his principal directive. Music is not all vertical. It keeps others in view. We are to “speak” to each other with music, and “teach” and “admonish” (warn) each other. It should go without saying that edification is not the same as entertainment, which makes people happy and excited, but often does not deal deeply with the soul in the way that the word “edification” implies. The simple music of a congregation, for instance, when seeking to teach each other through thought-provoking words and music, can be a potent tool for spiritual development. This concept alone might change the content and manner of your music experience.

Second, music is to be a way to “let the word dwell richly among you.” This means that good music is the “word” or the “message” musically presented. It is joined to the testifying word, the preached word, the taught word, the prayed word of God, in such a way that the time spent together becomes a baptism in the word of God. The music of the song carries “the word,” “the message,” or “the truth” of God on its wings.

Third, Christian music is often to be an offering to the congregation from a spiritually-mindedbrother or sister. Paul says “each one has a psalm” as if to say, individuals come prepared and spiritually ready to sing a psalm (or, by extension, a spiritual song or hymn) to the group for their edification; or perhaps they are to suggest their psalm to the group for corporate singing. This does not preclude thinking through a song beforehand as opposed to being entirely spontaneous, but when offered, it often will give the appearance of spontaneity in the meeting itself. I know it is entirely out of range for most of us to consider this idea at all, but I’m only reporting what I’m reading. In the early church, people made contributions of their gifts and talents for the building up of the body. It was part of what it meant to have body-life in the church. The meetings were more or less open to believers’ gifts—orchestrated by God; not chaotic. To think otherwise is to be more a child of the Reformation than the New Testament.

Fourth, by necessary assumption, coordination of the meeting, including all musical gifts, must have been the responsibility of the elders who were in charge of guiding the believers, under the headship of Christ. I don’t think they would have understood an “order of service” as a means of doing this. The people simply brought their gifts and made their contributions under the guidance of the Spirit, looking to the elders as leaders for shaping the meeting as needed. Wise elders may have curbed the excesses of some, or even refused to allow others to offer their supposed gift, but however they worked it out, their meetings were open for the sharing of gifts and talents under their sagacious oversight.

Fifth, though Paul did not rule out ecstatic singing (singing in the spirit without engaging the mind), he admonished the church to “sing with mind also.” The larger point being made is that what is sung must be able to receive the “Amen” from those who are there. He mentions the “ungifted” being among them. It must be, on some level, understandable to them also. Here Paul is not approving what he denies earlier in 1 Corinthians (that those without the Spirit cannot understand the things of God), but is only meaning that people need to hear intelligible words in their singing. I am not going to delve into this debated issue of praying in the spirit and the matter of tongues, or the issue of interpreting such speech, but I am only making the obvious comment: Our singing must be intelligible to have its greatest value. It is what is intelligible that is ultimately most edifying. Understanding is important.

Sixth, a variety of music forms may used. Whatever is meant by “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs,” we may at least note that this was not a “hymns only” church, or a “psalms only” church. I know there are arguments about these words from those who practice exclusive psalmody. Even so, I take the view that these represent varying forms of music found in the church. Who would argue that an emotive Scripture praise song done by memory is usually more appropriate during a heartfelt prayer-time, than the singing of even such a great hymn as “A Mighty Fortress is Our God”? We need variety.

Seventh, no music directors are seen in the early church pattern of worship. Paul highlighted in Ephesians 4 the human gifts to the church Christ left us: “apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.” Surprisingly, he did not mention “music directors.” When spiritual gifts are listed in 1 Corinthians, Romans and 1 Peter, nothing about a music gift is mentioned there either. Though I owe a lot to those music directors I enjoyed as a boy, and though there are some godly ones that I sincerely appreciate, the absence of such a staff position in the local churches of the New Testament documents is glaring. This is not to say that pastors who have musical gifts cannot do some wonderful things with music related to the church, but they should be pastors (elders, overseers) in every sense of the word. At the same time, musical gifts are not a requirement of pastoral ministry.

Finally

All I’m really saying is that, like a child in the park, we have run off in all directions related to music without consulting our Father for His wishes. For 60 years my uncle faithfully and lovingly brought his sister chocolate-covered cherries for Christmas. Only in her late 80s did she tell me privately that she never liked chocolate-covered cherries. He had never consulted her, but assumed his taste was hers. What if we like what we do for God, but God doesn’t like it at all? When our practice, as sincere as it might be, almost totally disregards the body-life design of God for the church spelled out for us in great detail in the New Testament, we surely are working against His intentions. Even if arriving at His view of the church means that we make major structural changes, would it not be right to do so?

The main lesson, summarized, is that early New Testament believers purposefully abandoned choreographed, professional and elaborate musical presentations to the shadowlands of the temple age, and moved forward into the simpler, more fluid and flexible, leadership of the Spirit. Although I’m not sure exactly how all of this is accomplished, I would rather be attempting to go His direction than assuming I know better than God what He likes. With careful attention to the body language of the New Testament, and authentic trust in God, surely we can take steps, gradually if necessary, to return to this glorious simplicity, beauty and balance.

Copyright © 2009 Jim Elliff

Ex Mormon

Yes, I’m an ex-Mormon who is now a Christian. My family goes back to the beginnings of the Mormon church, and about 10 years ago I went from being a temple going, active Mormon to knowing Christ, and the power of His work in my life (and attending Christian churches)–and honestly the contrast couldn’t be bigger.

While I was LDS the focus of my life was on myself, on what I could do, and what I had to do to “please” God. I loved Jesus Christ, or thought I did anyway but didn’t really know the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus I knew was a far different character, a man who was better behaved than I, and further along in his progression towards becoming God. He was my older brother (as [is] Satan), and as such that’s kind of what I thought of him–like you would an older brother whose somewhat of a hero to you. And, my relationship to him was always based on my performance–had I done some good thing to please him (like wearing my sacred underwear faithfully, going to the temple, fulfilling my calling or job in the church, not smoking, drinking, etc., and more).

Since becoming a Christian I’ve come to know Jesus who IS God and is so amazing and awesome that I’m left without words when I think about Him. I honestly can’t describe Him–not that He can’t be described, but that my words seem puny and insignificant when I try. And, my relationship to Him is on such a different basis–it’s on the basis of a God who did all that needs to be done for my salvation, and who I am eternally grateful to, but not just grateful, but who I owe my very life to–in fact, He IS my life. And, of course because He is my life I do certain things–many things like I did as a Mormon–and many more things I wouldn’t have even considered as a Mormon, like giving up all the world has to offer to become a full-time missionary–devoting my life to reaching the lost.

But, my focus is far, far different. My focus is on the God of the Universe, and not on myself and what I can accomplish (I’m afraid if that was my focus I’d have gone home by now! :{ ). . . and what a difference that makes. I no longer serve a God who was once a man, and who wants me to learn to be a God myself, but instead serve a God who ALWAYS was God, and who loved me enough to do everything necessary for me to come to Him in faith, be adopted as His own dear daughter, and have free access to Him, and not only free access, but the right and priveledge to come into His awesome presence anytime–even when I’ve really messed up and to have the confidence that He’ll forgive me because He loves me, and loved me enough to die for me while I was STILL His enemy. . .

So, in the end, for me, I can see so clearly that there’s a wide, vast gap between us and them, and it’s not just in doctrine, it’s the difference between life, the Vinelife, or the life of a Christian who’s walking in a faith relationship with God–doing as He says, learning from Him, being corrected by Him, and walking in faith day by day as opposed to a religion that’s focused on man, on what man has to do, on what he has to achieve, and on what man can become with help from god of course. . .

It’s my sincere desire that people can see that difference. In my opinion it’s the difference between life and death. Feel free to write me if you have any further questions. I’d love to help you see, from an insiders perspective what it’s really like.