The Glory Land
on 21 March 2014 - 11:09 AM
What does it mean to dress right? Does it mean a $700 suit and tie? Does it mean a secondhand shabby looking suit? Does it mean priest collar and robes? Does it mean nice slacks and a button down shirt?
Dressing right is very subjective. I kind of prefer the collar and robes, as it takes much of the question and individual style out of the equation.
How did this ever get to be an issue to begin with? Should we accept defeat in this battle? Is this a dead issue or an issue of the past? Before the fight began in America the only issue we had to preach on much was modesty. The idea of a woman wearing pants was as unthinkable to the church member as a man wearing a dress. All a pastor had to preach was that it is an abomination for a man or woman to wear that which pertains to the opposite gender, and the issue was settled.
Somewhere the pressure from carnal women in the church became more than the preachers could survive. Somewhere in time church members began deciding to get up and walk out of church services at such offensive preaching. Somewhere church members decided to move their membership over this one subject. Somewhere it became too costly for preachers to defend any longer. Somewhere it became impossible for a pastor to get a church unless he would let go of his conviction. How did this happen? When did right preaching become wrong? When did Godly standards become legalism? Somehow we have been conned into thinking that if these last few preachers will just drop the issue, it will just go away. Our US Attorney General is taking the same approach to homosexual marriage. Eric Holder has encouraged state attorneys general not to defend their states' gay marriage bans in hopes that they will go the way of the old laws which are still on many state's books regarding adultery and fornication. But right and wrong do not just fade away with the memories of past generations. God still lives, and He still makes the rules. God will hold me accountable for what I neglect to preach just as He will hold you accountable for what you neglect to heed.
Do the arguments not make sense anymore? Of course they do; we are just willing to suspend them in favor of being accepted by the lost we seek to save. The ungodly have made a very successful run at blurring the distinction between gender specific garments. Women's garments are more masculine and men's garments are more feminine than ever. That is by design, a design to prove God wrong about the differences between the roles of men and women. I know the masses do not move by their own design, but they are being moved by someone's design. Why do we want to surrender this argument to the world so badly? Should we not be more concerned than we are about defending God's position regarding the roles of men and women? The same arguments are made here that are made with music about garments or genres being neutral. The professionals in both the design and music worlds both acknowledge that this is not true. Why have church members created this argument for themselves? It is to justify their desire to be worldly without leaving the church.
Did we get beaten or did we surrender? Can we reclaim this ground? For the sake of all the church members who cannot figure out why their families are falling apart, can we not help them to reclaim their proper roles at home and begin to repair the broken structures of their families? What is the connection? Different clothes emphasize the differences between the genders. God made an issue of that, so it must be important to him. That's right! God made an issue out of gender-specific clothing, because it is important to acknowledge to differences between the genders and the roles that He designed for them. That is why the devil wants to minimize the contrast. Do we want to be on the wrong side of that? Is it that important?
The modern independent, fundamental church has lost most of its influence, and the presence of God's power is less prevalent than the presence of pride. In my area of the country (northern WV) there is no understanding among church members of how to salvage or preserve the Christian home. Every man and woman does that which is right in his own eyes and excuses the results because everyone seems to be going through these struggles these days. The point is that we should not be, and we do not have to be. Does it all hinge on what the women are wearing? No, it hinges on an attitude of submission to God's idea of what our roles are. Men refuse to submit to their role in leading, and women rebel against the men. The fact that pants have become the common garment is the evidence that we have surrendered to the world whether on purpose or not. It is a symbol of the success of the feminist movement in America. If you do not believe this, try changing into a dress from now on and see what reaction you get, ladies.
What do I think should happen? What do you think should happen? What should you do about this?
We're having a special service tomorrow and I've invited several ladies, two said they would come, the others said maybe. Please pray that they will come, but especially for one of them. D is not a Christian and was scared by the last church she went to (I won't go into details but it has greatly affected the way she views Christians), and is really hesitant about returning to a church, but she is coming to the service tomorrow only because we are friends. Please pray that the message will speak to her heart and she will be saved or at least will no longer be afraid of church and will come back.
Posted by Miss Linda
on 01 January 2014 - 02:41 AM
I stayed up to welcome the new year with prayer. There are so many blessings for which to give thanks, but also so many concerns for which to pray. The world seems to be turning more bold in its sinfulness and thinking only of evil day and night.
While reading Psalms, I came across a lovely verse for this new year: "Thou crownest the year with Thy goodness" (Psalm 65:11).
May God crown 2014 with His goodness for all of you!!
Perhaps this will be the year when Christ returns again!
Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
Notice the verse does not say, "Tithe, and it shall be given unto you..."
All comes from God..... whatever you give came from Him time, money, talent, .........
Consider the widow who gave 2 mites (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-3) and Jesus upheld her as a shining example of faith. Do you think her needs went unmet or that her faith was not rewarded in this life or the next? Now, I don't see where Jesus demanded those two mites from her or flippantly expected that she should give them. Rather I see glowing praise because she did it despite her situation. Jesus clearly didn't care about the amount given, but the heart of the giver. He was clearly pleased with her giving even though she had nothing left. It's a false statement to say that God doesn't want you to give when you have needs yourself. Rather what He wants is an acknowledgment that He's in control of everything and an expression of faith in Him to provide. This is the heart of all giving whether it is tithe, faith promise, or grace.
There is no reason to ever disparage anyone for giving or not giving to any degree because it is a matter of the heart that is between the person and God. Yes, it is absolutely wrong for any type of giving to be demanded/expected and use it as a tool for whipping people into obedience or submission. But it is also absolutely wrong to tear down any form of systematic giving because it shouldn't be "required." Shame on all sides throughout history for making it an issue of rules and regulations.
I tithe the first 10% of my income because I want to acknowledge to God that I know He gives it to me and I'm dependent upon him for every dollar, every meal, every garment of clothing, and every night spent dry and warm under a roof.
I give to faith promise because I love and believe in missions and spreading the Gospel and know that God will take care of me if I'm seeking His kingdom first.
I give out of grace to those who have a need I can meet because I want to be a conduit of God's blessing and not a repository.
I do the first two regularly, without fail, and regardless of life's circustances. I do the third and the Holy Spirit lays someone's needs on me. I do none of them because I'm required to by God or the church. No one can say any of that is unscriptural. This whole conversation is wearisome and unfruitful because it has been made into an argument of whether the Bible teaches a particular method of giving (admittedly sometimes by me); but in doing so we've missed the larger point and turned it into a contentious topic. If we step back and genuinely look at it we should see that it's not about the money. It's not about the possessions. It's not about the requirements. It's not about getting something in return. It's not about maintaining a social status or position. It's not even about obedience. It's ALL about humility and acknowledging God for who He is, what He does, and how we depend on Him. A better conversation would be not about whether we should give, but on how our giving reflects our relationship with God and how we can best please Him in our giving.
I do so wish I could be in a good Independent Baptist Church again where they use nothing but the King James Bible. I know many kind Pentecostal, Methodist, Southern Baptist, Church of Christ folks who I show hospitality to but I don't want anything to do with some of their doctrine. That is the problem.
The word "addicted" in the King James, according to Strongs, was translated from the Greek word tasso,. This is the same Greek word translated as "ordained" in Acts 13:48. Some folks claim that the word "ordained" means that God predetermined the Gentiles, in Acts 13:48 to eternal life. This, I believe is a slander to the character of God. Keeping that in mind, I can "minister" to such folks who teach this "limited atonement.unconditional election" doctrine as well as to those who teach that we can be saved by baptism, keeping ourselves saved, eating a wafer, or whatever; but I am not to bid them "godspeed", partake, or condone in their false teachings in any way. Yes, we are supposed to minister to all and especially the saints. But, again, a 'saint' is someone saved by grace through faith plus or minus nothing.
....and would at least one person "like" this so I can get "666" out from under my Avatar?
Bravo to the Pastors who work 60-80 hours per week to "earn" their meager salary, only to lose their family.
The Pastor's first ministry is his family (as is every other man's).
The second ministry is his church.
The point of being supported "full time" is so that he does not have another job distracting him. We have a small church. Sometimes there are weeks where I'm sure 40 full hours don't get put in. Sometimes I'm sure there are more. A pastor of a small church can be the jack of all trades. He mows the lawn, does his own secretary work, studies for messages, fixes broken toilets, and does visitation and whatever else. Sure, maybe he could take less pay and get a part time job, but then the church would be the ones to lose out, because if they end up in the hospital or need their pastor, they'll just have to wait for him to get off work.
Thus, the idea of "full time pay" is the idea that the pastor should be available at ANY given time for the people. That doesn't mean that he is actually working 24/7, but that means the church wants their pastor available "just in case". My husband has had to go to court with someone....visit people in the hospital....go to funerals. You can't do that with a secular job on a regular basis.
Incidentally with his full time salary, I still have to work a job as well to help out, so it's definitely not enough to be "rich". It's just enough to be considered full time with benefits like insurance and etc.
I highly doubt any criticizers would truly like to trade places with most pastors. It certainly is nothing glorious, at least it's not at our church.
Amen, sister! And, the flock is supposed to support pastor's wives and their children. I pity the Christians who do not support their pastor and their families!